COP30 in Belém, Brazil happened at a time when climate stress is no longer a future threat but a daily reality. Temperatures are rising, floods recur with unsettling frequency and the gap between promises and delivery keeps widening. In this setting, India emerged as one of the most consistent voices at the summit. The final package was a compromise, but India’s argument was coherent: climate ambition must rest on equity, credible finance and the practical constraints of development.
India did not limit itself to reacting to the negotiations. It shaped much of the Global South’s messaging on adaptation, technology and finance, and ensured these issues stayed at the centre of the Belém outcome. That influence derived from a familiar combination — economic prudence, political clarity and a grounded understanding of development realities. But the larger context remained sobering: the Belém Package reaffirmed global intent, yet pushed many commitments into the 2030s, even as climate impacts intensify now.
READ I Rare-earth magnets: Can the new policy deliver?
Re-centring equity in a fractured process
India’s central claim at COP30 was simple. Global climate action cannot bypass the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. With only a sliver of historical emissions and large development gaps still to close, India argued that rapid mitigation cannot fall disproportionately on countries that are still building basic infrastructure and expanding energy access.
The argument carries historical force. Developed economies grew wealthy on a century of fossil fuels; developing economies have not yet met minimum consumption thresholds. India reminded negotiators that climate justice is not a rhetorical device. It is the only way to keep the negotiations politically viable for countries that must balance emission reductions with poverty reduction.
This framing resonated with much of the Global South. But it also exposed the limits of the Belém Package. Recognition of equity has grown more explicit, yet the financial transfers that give equity meaning remain uncertain, stretched over extended timelines and subject to future fiscal cycles in wealthier capitals.
Adaptation: India’s unfinished battle
If one theme dominated India’s stance, it was adaptation. For large parts of Asia and Africa, the climate challenge is not theoretical. It is already eroding water security, damaging crops, and pushing households into poverty. India argued at COP30 that adaptation must be treated as the first pillar of global climate action, not the residual category after mitigation targets are allocated.
Belém’s political commitment to triple adaptation finance by 2035 moves in the right direction, but the numbers remain aspirational. Current global flows hover around $80 billion a year, much of it tilted toward mitigation. The adaptation gap, by most multilateral estimates, continues to widen. India therefore pressed for concessional and grant-based finance, easier access procedures and stronger global indicators tied to the Global Goal on Adaptation.
These demands draw from India’s own experience with heatwaves, cyclones and erratic monsoons. They also reflect a broader truth: delayed adaptation financing imposes higher economic and human costs in the long run. Yet the Belém timetable extends deep into the next decade, leaving vulnerable countries exposed in the near term.
Technology: A question of access, not charity
At COP30, India also worked to put technology transfer back at the centre of the climate conversation. Access to clean technology, in India’s view, cannot remain constrained by restrictive intellectual property rules or prohibitively high licensing fees. Without affordable technology—whether in renewable energy, storage, green hydrogen, resilient agriculture or early warning systems—developing economies risk falling into a new form of climate dependency.
COP30 made space for technology platforms and voluntary cooperation. But the gap between principle and practice remains wide. The cost of storage systems, the pace of hydrogen technology diffusion and the availability of affordable climate-resilient seeds will determine whether the green transition is broad-based or limited to countries that can pay for it. India’s insistence on reforming global IP frameworks echoed a wider frustration that rhetoric on technology is not matched by concessions on access.
A just and realistic energy transition
India avoided the easy slogans around fossil fuel phaseouts at COP30. Rather than opposing the transition, it argued for a pathway that is orderly, just and financially viable. With power demand rising and coal still providing the bulk of electricity, India warned that premature or externally imposed timelines could undermine growth and deepen poverty.
India also pointed out that the global finance commitments announced at Belém—whether the $1.3 trillion annual finance trajectory by 2035 or the adaptation pledge—remain non-binding. If they materialise late or in diluted form, developing economies will have to fill the gap with domestic fiscal resources and private capital. That is a hard arithmetic for countries managing social spending pressures and attempting to build climate-resilient infrastructure simultaneously.
India reaffirmed its intention to expand renewables rapidly—already among the world’s most aggressive build-outs. But it kept the right to calibrate its transition based on actual, rather than promised, financial flows.
Finance, trade and the politics behind delivery
The absence of a binding roadmap on fossil fuels leaves space for unilateral measures by advanced economies. Carbon border taxes, green taxonomy requirements and supply-chain disclosure rules are becoming instruments of climate policy. These pressures could reshape trade flows, even as multilateral finance remains uncertain.
India’s concern is straightforward. If global climate finance arrives slowly, and developed countries rely increasingly on trade measures to enforce climate ambition, the political economy of the transition will grow more contentious. Climate justice cannot be claimed in multilateral forums and then pursued through protectionist instruments in practice.
This tension sits at the heart of the COP30 outcome: a moral consensus on justice, paired with delivery mechanisms that depend on national budgets, political cycles and domestic industrial interests.
Influence without illusions
COP30 did not produce the breakthrough that vulnerable countries urgently need. But India ensured that the summit confronted the core questions—who pays, how much, and when. It kept adaptation, finance and technology at the centre of the agenda and spoke with a clarity that resonated across developing regions.
India’s approach rested on three pillars: strengthening adaptation finance, widening access to clean technology and expanding domestic renewable capacity while managing a just transition. These priorities position India as both a defender of equity and a pragmatic actor shaping the terms of global climate cooperation.
Yet the larger truth remains. COP30 recognised the principles of justice but postponed much of the delivery. India must continue to press wealthier countries to honour the Belém pledges. But it must also prepare a domestic roadmap that integrates climate risk into fiscal policy, infrastructure design and social protection, rather than waiting for global cheques that may arrive too late.
In a world where climate promises outpace performance, India’s realism at Belém offered clarity. But clarity is not substitute for finance. That is the unresolved contradiction COP30 leaves behind.
The Author is Senior Director, VeK Policy Advisory & Research, New Delhi.