E-Paper
India's Journey from Baku to Belém
This article is authored by Ashraf Nehal, regional coordinator, Commonwealth Youth Climate Network, London.
India’s presence at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, has become a defining moment in the country’s climate diplomacy. For the first time since the Paris Agreement entered its second decade, India arrived at a COP not only as an advocate for equity but as a country expected to demonstrate models of implementation. The symbolism of the Amazon setting, chosen by Brazil for what it calls the COP of Action, reinforces the global demand that countries move beyond negotiation cycles and show practical delivery. In this context, India’s shift from Baku to Belém reflects both continuity and transformation: It still champions justice and finance for the Global South, but it now couples that advocacy with examples of scale, speed and systems thinking at home.
After years of finance shortfalls, slow adaptation progress and stalled accountability, Belém marks a return to the Global South and a renewed attempt to operationalise trust. Brazil set the tone early by urging measurable progress on the Loss and Damage Fund and calling for greater solidarity among emerging economies. India mirrored this sentiment on the opening day, noting that global cooperation cannot be rebuilt without predictable and adequate climate finance. The emphasis was not rhetorical. It was rooted in years of unmet promises that have shaped India’s negotiating posture.
India entered Belém with the experience of COP29 still fresh. In Baku, India delivered one of the sharpest critiques of the proposed 2035 climate finance package. The government described it as insufficient and argued instead for a predictable system capable of mobilising 1.3 trillion dollars annually. This was not posturing. It reflected a decade-long persistence: Climate ambition for the Global South is inseparable from reliable financing. The same message carries into COP30, but the tone is more grounded in accountability. India is not simply asking for more money. It is asking for transparent tracking, operational clarity and financial flows that respond to real mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage needs.
At the heart of India’s engagement in Belém is the climate finance debate. India reiterated that the earlier pledge of $ 100 billion a year has still not been fulfilled. It demanded that definitions of climate finance now be standardised to prevent creative accounting. With adaptation needs growing rapidly, India also highlighted that adaptation finance must rise significantly, especially for communities that contribute the least to emissions but face the heaviest burdens. The operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund is central to this, and India has emphasised that the mechanism must deliver tangible outcomes for developing countries rather than become another instrument slowed by bureaucracy.
This year, India took a significant step by submitting its first National Adaptation Plan at COP30. The plan signals a conscious shift towards embedding resilience into development planning. It aligns naturally with the Brazilian focus on frontline communities, including farmers, fisherfolk and indigenous peoples. India’s domestic priorities, from water security to climate resilient agriculture, resonate strongly in an Amazonian COP that seeks to foreground people and ecosystems.
The shift from COP29 to COP30 is also visible in India’s stance on climate-linked trade measures. In Baku, India joined several developing countries in raising concerns about unilateral carbon-based trade policies such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. In Belém, the argument has been sharpened. India characterises such measures as modern forms of protectionism that undermine multilateralism. By doing so, India is not resisting climate ambition. Rather, it is emphasising that global sustainability cannot be built on systems that penalise developing economies for historical inequalities they did not create.
India came to COP30 with a strengthened domestic story. The country has crossed 50% non-fossil installed power capacity and has nearly 200 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity. It leads major South-South institutions such as the International Solar Alliance and continues to expand ethanol blending and green hydrogen initiatives. India’s large- scale afforestation efforts and carbon sink expansion further reinforce its credibility. These achievements do not suggest that India’s transition is complete. They show, however, that India has moved from long term target setting to short term action.
This domestic credibility has allowed India to adopt a more constructive international posture. At COP29, India collaborated with countries like Bolivia, Nigeria and Cuba to criticise excessive reliance on private finance and opaque negotiation processes. In COP30, India is increasingly seen as building rather than just challenging. It is working more closely with Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia to sketch a Global South perspective that links ecological responsibility with economic development. The Amazon setting underscores this message. Both India and Brazil manage large populations, complex ecosystems and rapidly growing economies. Their shared concerns anchor a cooperative approach rather than a conditional one.
India has also refined its position on technical frameworks such as carbon markets. Drawing on domestic experience, it pushes for Article 6.4 rules that emphasise integrity and avoid speculative trading. Similarly, its demand for measurable financial reporting is rooted in practicality rather than confrontation. The aim is not to slow negotiations but to ensure that future commitments are credible.
India’s transition from Baku to Belém is ultimately a shift from critique to construction. At COP29, India highlighted structural weaknesses in the global climate regime. At COP30, it seeks to contribute to redesigning that regime so that it responds to the developmental realities of emerging economies. This posture is grounded and realistic. It does not overstate India’s capacity nor underplay its challenges. Instead, it shows that India’s credibility lies in balancing ambition with practicality.
The result is a diplomacy that is more confident yet cautious, more technical yet rooted in justice, and more focused on implementation than ever before. India’s message is consistent: Climate justice is not a slogan but a matter of accountability. It requires delivery from all sides, especially those that historically contributed most to the crisis.
As negotiations in Belém proceed, India’s role will be carefully watched. The world is no longer assessing only what India demands. It is also observing how India’s own actions shape global expectations. In an age where accountability defines climate politics, this dual positioning may be India’s most significant contribution.
India’s journey from Baku to Belém shows that developing countries can simultaneously push for fairness and demonstrate effective climate action. The future of global climate governance will depend on how well major emerging economies navigate this dual responsibility. India’s evolving role indicates that the country is willing to carry more weight, but only within a system that is fair, transparent and collectively owned.
This article is authored by Ashraf Nehal, regional coordinator, Commonwealth Youth Climate Network, London.
