When leaders, negotiators, financiers, and activists gathered in Belém for COP30, the spectacle was unmistakable. More than 56,000 delegates from over 190 countries converged for what Brazil billed as the largest climate summit in three decades. Yet the real story lay not in the scale of participation but in the quiet shift underway in global climate politics. The absence of the United States, widely read as a setback for climate ambition, had a paradoxical effect.
It reduced procedural obstruction and opened space for developing countries to shape outcomes with greater confidence. COP30 did not deliver dramatic breakthroughs. What it did deliver was something more consequential: a rebalancing of authority in climate governance.
READ I India at COP30: Climate justice meets slow delivery
From negotiation fatigue to implementation
COP30 was framed explicitly around four priorities: implementation, adaptation, climate finance, and multilateralism. This was not accidental. Nearly a decade after the Paris Agreement, the gap between promises and delivery has become the central weakness of the global climate regime. The launch of the Global Implementation Accelerator and Brazil’s Belém Mission to 1.5°C was therefore significant, even if modest in ambition. Both initiatives are designed to push countries to convert Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans into time-bound, measurable action.
Brazil reinforced this credibility by placing its own domestic transition on the table, particularly on deforestation control and fossil-fuel dependence. That posture matters. It signals that leadership is no longer defined by rhetorical ambition alone but by the willingness to absorb political and economic costs at home. India’s position reflects a similar realism. New Delhi has resisted a blanket commitment to fossil-fuel phase-out, citing development constraints, but its domestic energy transition is advancing faster than its diplomacy suggests. Non-fossil sources now account for just over 50 per cent of installed electricity capacity, and the 500 GW target for 2030 is well within reach. The message from Belém was clear: credibility now flows from execution, not declarations.
READ I COP30: India’s climate diplomacy after the Belém outcome
Adaptation moves from the margins to the centre
Perhaps the most consequential shift at COP30 was the elevation of adaptation from a secondary concern to a core pillar of climate action. For decades, mitigation dominated negotiations, reflecting the priorities of industrialised economies. Belém altered that balance. The agreement to operationalise the Global Goal on Adaptation, adopt common adaptation indicators, and commit to tripling adaptation finance to $120 billion annually by 2035 marked long-delayed recognition that resilience is not optional for the Global South.
The timeline, however, remains problematic. For countries already experiencing climate-driven shocks to food systems, water security, and coastal livelihoods, a 2035 horizon offers little comfort. This places the onus on developing economies to pursue alternative financing channels. Regional development banks, blended-finance instruments, and implementation-linked concessional lending will have to fill the gap left by slow-moving Western commitments. India’s own adaptation strategy offers a useful model. By embedding resilience across agriculture, water management, health, and coastal planning, and by avoiding one-size-fits-all solutions, it has treated adaptation as a development imperative rather than a climate add-on.
READ I COP30 exposes unravelling of multilateral climate order
Climate finance: bigger numbers, familiar fault lines
Finance remained the most contentious issue in Belém. Developed countries again avoided a binding commitment under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, opting instead for a two-year work programme. The shift came in the acceptance of multiple funding sources. The headline target of $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 reflects an acknowledgment that public finance alone will not suffice.
New instruments announced at COP30 point to emerging pathways. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility, designed to reward conservation outcomes, aligns well with forest-rich developing economies. For India, this could complement domestic programmes aimed at expanding forest and tree cover while preserving livelihoods. Health also entered climate finance discussions more firmly, with the launch of the Belém Health Action Plan highlighting the disproportionate burden climate change places on vulnerable populations. Integrating climate finance with public-health systems will be essential for countries where extreme heat, vector-borne disease, and air pollution are converging risks.
Indigenous knowledge and gender equity
COP30 marked a visible shift in who is recognised as a climate actor. Indigenous peoples recorded their largest participation in the history of UN climate negotiations, asserting claims over land, forests, and governance systems they have sustained for generations. These interventions were not symbolic. They reinforced evidence that territories managed by indigenous communities often outperform state-run conservation models.
India’s experience mirrors this reality. Across regions, indigenous and forest-dependent communities have preserved biodiversity through customary practices that modern policy is only beginning to value. Their inclusion in climate frameworks is not a concession but a correction. The adoption of an updated Gender Action Plan further reinforced this shift. Gender-responsive finance, data collection, and leadership were positioned as prerequisites for effective climate policy, not peripheral concerns. For India, where women play a central role in agriculture, water management, and household energy use, this alignment is overdue.
Despite the incremental progress at Belém, the arithmetic of climate risk remains unforgiving. Even with updated national pledges, current trajectories point to global warming well above the Paris threshold. COP30 did not resolve this contradiction. What it did establish was a more honest distribution of responsibility. Climate leadership is no longer monopolised by industrialised powers. It is increasingly shaped by countries willing to combine development realism with execution capacity.
For India, this moment carries both opportunity and obligation. Its ability to align growth, equity, and climate resilience will influence not just its own future but the credibility of climate justice as a governing principle. Belém showed that the world is ready to listen. The harder task now is to deliver.
Aakansha Choudhary is a Policy Researcher and Consultant, and George Cheriyan Executive Director, at the Center for Environment and Sustainable Development India (CESDI).