It is unlikely that a meaningful, durable, and effective agreement will be possible without resolving the question of finance. This contentious issue is not limited to just ensuring that there is adequate and predictable amount of money provided to help developing countries take action to address climate change.

A resolution must address the entire gamut of the questions on finance—starting with who provides the finance, who is eligible for it, what is the minimum amount of predictable finance that is being promised, what is the mechanism to ensure that there is a predictable increase in the amount over time, and how do we ensure that countries are held accountable for the finance they are providing.

Developing countries have consistently maintained that under the provisions of the UN Convention on Climate Change, it is the responsibility of the rich industrialised countries to provide finance to developing countries so that they can take measures that would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide pollution and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Developing countries are clear that this is not "aid" but an obligation for creating a situation that has led the world on the dangerous path of irreversible climate change. South Africa's Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko and chair of the 134-member strong developing country bloc G-77 and China, said "the developed countries are obligated to provide financial resources, including technology transfer and capacity building to all developing countries. This is a legal obligation under the (UN Framework) Convention (on Climate Change, UNFCCC). It is neither aid nor charity, nor is it the same as development assistance."

Industrialised countries acknowledge that they are obligated to provide climate finance, but with an eye on the changing global realities, would like developing countries "in a position to do so" to contribute to the money pot. This attempt to increase the donor base has been strongly contested by the developing countries.

"The emphasis should be on the amount of money that is being raised and not on the number of countries in the donor list. At the end, what matters is how much money is there on the table, the size of the pie, whether it is adequate to address the requirements of developing countries or not. More number of countries does not necessarily mean a larger amount of money being mobilised," said senior Indian negotiator Ajay Mathur.

There has been some attempt at softening in the position of the industrialised countries on expanding the donor base. US Climate Change Envoy Todd Stern said, "the position to do so provision has been over read. It is not an obligation on developing countries to provide finances but a voluntary decision." The US lead negotiator was referring to instances when developing countries have stepped up with funds such as the eight countries that have contributed to Green Climate Fund or China pledging $3.1 billion for developing countries.

But developing countries argue that South-South co-operation cannot be within the purview of the global climate agreement. "Developing countries have always provided finances and other support to other developing countries to deal with climate change. But this is something we do as part of South-South co-operation and doesn't have any relationship with the climate agreement. The onus of providing finance for climate related efforts lies solely with the industrialised countries. To include the south-south cooperation is to obfuscate the responsibility question," a senior African negotiator said.

The other contentious issue is who is eligible to receive the funds. All developing countries are eligible but increasingly there is talk of funding for "vulnerable" countries. There is however no clarity on what defines vulnerability. Many in the negotiations see this talk of vulnerable countries as a bid to divide up the developing countries bloc. The G-77 and China comprising a diverse developing countries have presented a resolutely unified front on the question of finance.

There is then the question of how much funds. In Copenhagen and Cancun, the rich industrialised countries had promised to provide $100 billion every year by 2020. That sum remains to be realized. Now developing countries are demanding that industrialised countries keep their promise, but identify a minimum annual financial target for the period beyond 2020. Discussions are also focused on putting in place a mechanism that would ensure periodic reassessment of the amount of finance that will have to be provided.

"While industrialised countries are keen on a racheting up mechanism for actions to reduce emissions, they are equally reluctant for a similar mechanism for finances," a senior developing country negotiator said.

Finally, differences persist on the reporting of climate finance. A methodology was put forward by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in July. It reported that of the promised $100 billion, industrialised countries had mobilized $62 billion in 2014 to help developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to global warming. Developing countries including India have said that the OECD report overestimates the amount of funding provided and a better tracking system to ensure transparency needs to be put in place. Discussions over the week will focus on transparency of climate finance as well, including whether the south-south cooperation though outside the purview of the finance obligations should be included to have a better sense of the amount of money being directed towards addressing global warming.