As the world counts down to COP30 in Belém, Brazil, climate diplomacy is alive with both hope and alarm. The recently unveiled “Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3 Trillion” has raised the stakes. It aims to scale global climate finance flows to $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for developing countries — a fourfold jump from the $300 billion target set at COP29. For India, which is facing one of its worst air-quality years as Delhi and the northern plains choke under toxic smog, COP30 is both a test of political resolve and an opportunity to shape the future of global climate finance.
Climate finance remains the most contested pillar of the global regime. The issue is not only about technology or ambition but also about resources and fairness. According to the Economic Survey, the country will need about $2.5 trillion by 2030 to meet its nationally determined contributions (NDCs), including $673 billion for adaptation alone.
READ | Building climate-resilient farms with data and AI
India had sharply criticised the $300 billion goal adopted at COP29 as inadequate and inconsistent with Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which places the responsibility for climate finance squarely on developed countries. The $1.3 trillion roadmap now under discussion is an improvement in scale but not in structure — it lacks clarity on how much of the flow will be grants and how concessional loans will be structured.
India’s domestic climate finance push
While India seeks fairness abroad, it has also begun mobilising finance at home. The issuance of sovereign green bonds, the creation of green credit markets, and the government’s focus on blended finance mechanisms show early steps toward a domestic climate finance architecture. Institutions such as the IFSC GIFT City are being positioned to attract global ESG capital into Indian renewables and infrastructure.
Yet, India still lacks a formal National Climate Finance Strategy, which could align fiscal policy, financial regulation, and private capital mobilisation. Without such a blueprint, public investment may not crowd in enough private capital to close the gap between ambition and affordability.
Belem’s opportunity and challenges
The upcoming conference offers New Delhi a chance to align with Brazil and other developing nations to shape the narrative on scaling climate finance, especially for adaptation and just transition. The roadmap estimates that developing countries may need $3.2 trillion annually by 2035, including $2.05 trillion for clean energy, $750 billion for adaptation and loss & damage, and $350 billion for nature-based and agricultural projects.
However, the roadmap remains vague on crucial questions. How much of the $1.3 trillion will come as public versus private flows? What share will be grant-based, and how will concessionality be defined? Indian negotiators have flagged these ambiguities as critical. India also advocates for a UNFCCC-led accounting framework that distinguishes new and additional finance from repackaged aid — a long-standing demand to ensure transparency and accountability in climate finance reporting.
India’s growing leverage
India enters COP30 with greater influence than ever before. Its renewable energy capacity, domestic climate policies, and emerging green manufacturing ecosystem have transformed it from a passive recipient into a credible player. Brazil’s recognition of India as a key COP30 partner reinforces this shift.
India’s leadership in the International Solar Alliance (ISA) and the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) demonstrates its capacity to design and operationalise South–South cooperation models. Through BRICS and the G20 Climate Finance Working Group, India has consistently pushed for expanding the grant share of climate finance and strengthening the role of multilateral development banks in funding adaptation projects.
Adapting to reality
For India, the climate crisis is lived daily — in heatwaves, urban flooding, and agricultural distress. Adaptation, not mitigation, is its frontline challenge. The Loss and Damage Fund, operationalised after COP28, offers a partial solution, but India has sought more clarity on access conditions and governance structures. The country argues that the fund must function as compensation, not credit, to uphold climate justice.
India also recognises that the future of climate finance cannot rely solely on public sources. The push to attract ESG capital through SEBI’s BRSR framework, improved ESG disclosure norms, and emerging taxonomy standards is vital. However, persistent risk perception, high project costs, and limited currency hedging remain barriers for foreign investors in India’s green sector.
A fractured global context
Beyond finance, trust remains the missing currency of climate diplomacy. Developed countries have yet to meet the $100 billion annual commitment first pledged at Copenhagen in 2009. The war in Ukraine, the widening US–China rivalry, and fiscal constraints in the West have further eroded faith in collective action.
COP30, therefore, will be shaped as much by geopolitics as by green ambition. India’s task is to bridge this trust deficit by linking climate justice with growth equity, ensuring that the transition narrative does not leave developing countries burdened with unsustainable debt.
As negotiators head to Belem, India’s stance should be clear and assertive: the $1.3 trillion goal must define the public–private balance and include verifiable, grant-based targets.
Current OECD estimates place actual flows to developing countries at just $115.9 billion — far from the required scale. India should push for transparent tracking mechanisms, a fair grant-loan ratio, and loss-and-damage financing that recognises historical responsibility.
With Brazil at the helm, COP30 could mark a turning point — from fragmented ambition to accountable action. For India, it is a moment to transform moral authority into strategic leadership, aligning economic resilience with global credibility.