DAW 10th January 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027
Question
Why is the withdrawal of a major power from climate agreements a matter of concern for developing countries? Examine the challenges faced by multilateral climate funds in mobilising and directing resources to vulnerable countries. (250 Words, 15 Marks).
Model Answer
Approach:
Introduction:
Briefly link climate governance with multilateralism, equity, and finance predictability, citing the withdrawal of a major power from the UNFCCC framework.
Body:
Examine why withdrawal matters for developing countries (finance, governance, technology, private investment), followed by systemic challenges of multilateral climate funds, supported by global and India-specific examples.
Conclusion:
Conclude with the need for reinvigorated multilateralism aligned with SDG 13 and SDG 17, highlighting India’s role through South–South and triangular cooperation.
Introduction:
Climate change governance is premised on multilateralism, equity, and predictability of finance and technology flows. The recent withdrawal of the United States (USA) from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and associated bodies has raised serious concerns for developing countries because global climate governance rests on reciprocity, trust, and shared responsibility.
Body:
Why withdrawal of a major power matters for developing countries?
Erosion of climate finance commitments:
Developing countries’ climate plans depend on assured finance under the Paris framework and institutions like the Green Climate Fund (GCF). Withdrawal of a major contributor deepens the finance gap, as the $100-billion annual goal remains unmet.
For example, GCF-supported coastal protection in Bangladesh and climate-resilient agriculture in Kenya face uncertainty, while SIDS such as the Maldives risk losing funds for sea walls and freshwater security- threatening basic survival.
Weakening of multilateral climate governance:
Exit from bodies like the IPCC reduces scientific inputs into global assessments, while withdrawal from the Paris Agreement removes a major emitter from emissions reporting, transparency mechanisms, and COP negotiations.
This weakens accountability of large emitters, slows mitigation, and shifts a greater adaptation burden onto the Global South, which has contributed least to historical emissions.
Decline in technology transfer and knowledge spill-overs:
UNFCCC-linked platforms enable diffusion of clean technologies and best practices. Disengagement slows collaborative R&D in storage, green hydrogen, and climate modelling.
In India, earlier international cooperation contributed to steep reductions in solar tariffs; weakened engagement risks higher transition costs for other developing economies.
Adverse signalling to private finance:
Multilateral participation de-risks projects and crowds in private capital. Withdrawal signals policy uncertainty, raising borrowing costs and discouraging investment- especially in adaptation projects.
In African LDCs, already underfunded sectors like climate-resilient agriculture and water management become even less attractive to investors.
Challenges faced by multilateral climate funds:
Chronic undercapitalisation:
Developing countries need nearly $1 trillion annually by 2030, but multilateral funds remain severely under-resourced, constraining adaptation in hotspots such as South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Debt-heavy financing:
Nearly two-thirds of public climate finance is provided as loans. For fiscally stressed countries like Sri Lanka and Pacific Island states, this discourages non-revenue projects such as mangrove restoration and heat-action plans.
Complex access and slow disbursement:
Stringent fiduciary and safeguard requirements delay approvals. Many LDCs lack project-preparation capacity, leading to low fund absorption despite high vulnerability.
Fragmentation and inequitable allocation:
Overlapping funds (GCF, Adaptation Fund, Loss and Damage Fund) create coordination failures. Middle-income countries capture a larger share, while LDCs and SIDS remain underfunded.
Weak accountability:
Absence of binding penalties for donor non-compliance reduces predictability and erodes trust in the climate finance regime.
Case study:
India:
As per Deloitte’s The Climate Response report, India requires nearly $1.5 trillion by 2030 to achieve its climate and energy transition targets, highlighting dependence on predictable multilateral finance.
Uncertainty around GCF-supported coastal and cryosphere projects illustrates how volatility in global climate finance directly heightens adaptation risks and may slow clean-technology diffusion that previously enabled sharp reductions in solar tariffs.
Way forward:
Recalibrate finance architecture: Set a credible, time-bound New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) focused on grants and concessional finance for adaptation.
Simplify access: Standardised templates, readiness windows, and regional project-prep facilities for LDCs/SIDS.
Leverage blended finance- carefully: Use guarantees and first-loss tranches to crowd in private capital without socialising losses.
Strengthen South–South platforms: Scale initiatives like the International Solar Alliance to bypass bureaucratic bottlenecks.
Enhance accountability: Transparent, comparable accounting and peer review of donor performance.
Diversify leadership: Encourage greater roles for the EU, Japan, and emerging donors while safeguarding equity (CBDR-RC).
Conclusion:
While the US withdrawal may offer India limited short-term flexibility, it weakens global climate cooperation, finance predictability, and equity in climate governance. Achieving the 1.5°C goal requires renewed commitment to SDG 13 (Climate Action) through stronger NDCs, assured climate finance, and faster technology diffusion, alongside SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) grounded in credible multilateralism. By leveraging South–South and triangular cooperation, India can turn disruption into leadership, strengthening collective climate resilience for future generations.