The 30th United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP-30) for Climate Change is slated to begin in Belém, Brazil, from 10th November to 21st November. The conference, like previous conferences, is very critical for taking stock of achievements on Paris commitments, and the entire world will be watching the proceedings and the end results. Special focus will be on the Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) released by the UNFCCC Secretariat, which has flagged the tardy progress and need to step up to evolve a broader strategy through the collective endeavours of the member nations, especially when the global temperature has for the first time breached the 1.5°C threshold this calendar year. However, the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) synthesis report released on 28th October 2025 lists out positive achievements in reducing emissions. India, in June 2025, had already achieved 50 per cent of its goal of meeting its power requirements from non-fossil fuels, which is a big milestone for a developing country of more than 143 crore people.
After the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President Trump’s administration, COP30 must bridge the big geopolitical differences between developed and developing countries to forge concrete, implementable pathways within the forefront of common but differentiated responsibilities. In an era of extreme weather observed over the last ten years, the climatic vagaries have ravaged economies and displaced millions. These elements underscore the conference’s role not as an annual ritual, but as a linchpin for equitable survival. This writer, as an Indian battling climatic extremes and observing the damages done to the environment by the developed world during the previous two centuries, would like to ask the developed world why they are dilly-dallying in not accepting their role in creating such disastrous climatic conditions for present and future generations, and shying away from providing the technology and the needed finances rather than harping on India and China for being the major emitters. In fact, if they agree on these two fundamentals, then India should be prepared to start climate-resilient administration from top to bottom to meet emission reduction and upscale mitigation and adaptation across landscapes. This writer, on moral grounds, does not believe in the principle of buying carbon credits by developing worlds from poor countries to offset their emissions, but practically it has become a norm now, though not very successful.
Having said this, one of the urgent needs for the COP30 negotiators is to take note of the Global Stocktake (GST) of COP28, which inter alia revealed that current national commitments would yield only a 10 per cent emissions reduction by 2030-far short of the 45 per cent needed to align with the 1.5°C threshold.
The conference’s Brazil setting underscores the nexus of biodiversity, emissions, and equity, demanding differentiated yet collaborative roles from key actors. Therefore, Brazil, as head of the COP, had described it as an ‘implementation COP’, urging nations to deeply integrate the GST into national policy, especially to end acrimony on the issue of climate finance. As far as Indian views are concerned diplomatically, India has laid bare its stance through high-level engagements at the UN General Assembly briefing. Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj voiced “deep disappointment” over COP29’s finance shortfall, vowing to champion scaled-up, grant-based flows under common but differentiated responsibilities. It would be appropriate to discuss COP30 from the point of view of India’s national interests.
The Indian delegation must assert to seek ‘Climate Justice and Equity’, leading the voice of the Global South in tandem with Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) and G77+China, and rightfully rejecting the 300-billion-dollar finance as ‘eye wash and optical illusion’, as even the 100-billion-dollar promise was never met except in 2022. Therefore, again, India should push for more than 1 trillion dollars in funds, along with accountability, transparency, and no dilution of CBDR through uniform reporting on developing nations. As demanded in COP29 regarding Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), there should be free access to green technologies without IPR barriers, enabling deployment in sectors like renewable energy, adaptation, and methane mitigation. The Indian government, while taking proactive steps as this writer has been suggesting, needs to ask for grants for climatically vulnerable areas like the Sundarbans, Northeast India, and the Western Ghats.
From the point of view of civil society, COP30 must recognise that mitigation and adaptation will have no credible progress without the active and purposeful involvement of civil society, especially marginalised sections. NGOs and other civil society groups, especially those working at grassroots levels, quite often feel aggrieved for not being consulted in preparation before the COPs and NDCs. Further, the forest department plays a key role in climate change mitigation and adaptation, but they are never consulted, especially on strategy regarding Agriculture, Forests and Other Land Use (AFOLU), though AFOLU supports the livelihoods of billions of people. There are many people and organisations in India advocating for including AFOLU under Para 6.2 and Para 6.4 of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Para 6.2 provides guidance to countries to use internationally transferred mitigation outcomes towards their climate commitments. Para 6.4 creates a United Nations-supervised mechanism for issuing carbon credits with finances to emission-reducing projects. AFOLU, however, is a double-edged weapon: on one hand, it is a major source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing approximately 20-24 per cent of total global emissions; on the other hand, AFOLU offers immense mitigation potential through carbon sequestration and emission reductions, making it essential for Paris Agreement goals of limiting warming to 1.5-2°C. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report stressed AFOLU’s role in delivering co-benefits like biodiversity conservation, food security, and adaptation to climate impacts, but warns of trade-offs such as competition for land with bio-energy, etc. The Indian government has excluded agriculture from its emission intensity reduction target of 45 per cent by 2030 from the year 2005 and instead is focusing on the energy and industry sectors, though forestry, however, is included as a sink, with commitments to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2030.
The government may have its own reasons, primarily due to socio-economics, equity, and food security for livelihoods. As seen during previous COP discussions, excluding agriculture from NDCs and carbon markets avoids “trade coercion” that might hinder developmental rights. However, this writer feels that the Government of India must allow agroforestry as an internal mechanism to get carbon credit through Corporate Social Responsibility and government-funded projects, so that farmers’ income can be bolstered along with meeting mitigation goals. The Prime Minister has unequivocally reiterated that farmers’ interests will never be compromised. The Indian delegation must declare this in COP30, along with other steps like a climate-resilient, bottom-up development approach.
(The writer is a former Director-General, ICFRE, in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change)
