The 30th Conference of Parties (COP30) in Belem was expected to serve as the ‘COP of Implementation’, where aspirations of earlier COPs would translate into tangible outcomes. At the summit, Brazil took the ‘Mutirão’ approach, a traditional practice in which communities come together to work on a common goal. However, it was met with a disconcerting contradiction: the world acknowledged the need for systemic climate action but did not commit to financing, timelines, and frameworks to facilitate it. The COP30 decision text also reflected this disparity, acknowledging for the first time that the world will likely overshoot 1.5°C, yet offering no corrective pathway or ratcheting mechanism to steer action back on course.

Instead, COP30 launched a set of voluntary initiatives, such as the Global Implementation Accelerator and the Belém Mission to 1.5°C, inviting countries to prepare implementation and investment plans. While useful, these initiatives neither constitute binding obligations nor provide a roadmap for fossil fuel transition or deforestation control. Even the ‘Tropical Forests Forever Facility’, announced at COP30, failed to establish a roadmap to halt deforestation.

A finance package big on optics, thin on credibility

The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) of US $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 supersedes the US $100 billion goal and, on paper, marks a step-up in the global finance conversation. However, these signals obscure deeper structural gaps. Developing countries, excluding China, require approximately US $2.4 trillion each year by 2030 and over US $3.2 trillion by 2035 to align with the 1.5°C trajectory. Adaptation finance now stands at about US $26 billion, significantly below the required annual funding of US $310–365 billion projected for the mid-2030s.

The persistent underfunding of the Loss and Damage Fund is equally troubling. Developed countries resisted calls to scale contributions and preserved a narrow mandate for the fund’s supervisory body.

COP30 delivered political signalling but no strengthening of the finance system. Unclear financing sources make the NCQG more aspirational than practical. For India, the funding gap is a direct constraint. As a climate-vulnerable large economy, India’s adaptation needs heat risk management, resilient food systems, water systems, coastal stabilisation, and urban flood control. Beyond concessional and predictable finance, India must also expand blended finance, build state-level adaptation pipelines, and strengthen domestic climate budgeting to develop bankable, implementation-ready projects.

Just transition: A new framework with no financial architecture

The establishment of a new Just Transition Mechanism and the formalisation of the UAE Just Transition Work Programme were two of COP30's institutional accomplishments. These represent a shift from limited emission accounting to a more comprehensive socio-economic transformation, integrating fairness, labour protection, and indigenous inclusion into transition planning.

However, they remain conceptual, like many other commitments at COP.

Developed nations resisted explicit finance commitments for transition support, leading to tense negotiations. References to unilateral trade measures (UTMs), a long-standing concern for India, were also dropped.

Without concessional and long-term finance, ‘just transition’ remains a slogan, deepening vulnerabilities for millions in India engaged in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, coal, and fossil fuel ecosystems. This makes it more crucial for India to develop a national just transition plan centred on skilling, social protection, and regional diversification, grounded in equity and economic pragmatism.

Fossil fuels: The missing mandate

The failure to include a fossil fuel phase-out, following opposition from major producers, was the most obvious omission from the COP30 outcome. The resulting roadmap for a ‘just, orderly, and equitable’ transition remains aspirational, unfunded, and non-binding, risking credibility.

The core imperatives for India have not changed, although the diplomatic pressure has eased. Heavy fossil fuel dependence increases trade exposure, stranded asset risks, and health costs. To stay competitive, India must scale up investments in distributed renewables, industrial electrification, storage, grid modernisation, green hydrogen, and coal region transitions, not merely to meet COP commitments but to avert the rising domestic costs of inaction.

Diluted progress on adaptation metrics

COP30 advanced negotiations under the Global Goal on Adaptation with an expanded set of indicators to track resilience across sectors. However, last-minute dilution significantly weakened the framework, leaving no clear criteria for defining success or failure in adaptation, thereby undermining effective and accountable finance allocation.

India should proceed with integrating national adaptation indicators into state-level plans, National Adaptation Plans, and Biennial Transparency Reports. A robust framework can strengthen resilience planning on the domestic front and position India to influence future global metrics.

Trade and technology: New frontiers of climate diplomacy

Climate-linked trade tensions were palpable at COP30. For the first time, the COP cover decision included a reference to UTMs, reaffirming that climate-related trade actions should not be arbitrary or discriminatory. The final agreement also launched three annual dialogues (2026–2028) to clarify how climate actions intersect with global trade rules.

These developments come amid growing concerns over the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and new deforestation-linked import regulations, which pose compliance challenges for export-oriented economies like India. To prevent these from becoming trade barriers, India must take a proactive approach by ensuring robust carbon accounting for heavy industries, creating due diligence frameworks for deforestation risks, and accelerating industrial energy efficiency. Further, the three new trade dialogues could offer India a platform to shape global rules on carbon border adjustments, technology transfer, and industrial competitiveness, areas lacking clear rules in the COP process.

The real test begins now

COP30 revealed a global disparity between intent and delivery. The political signals on finance, transition, and adaptation are encouraging but fall short of enabling time-bound action against accelerating climate risks. India’s course is set: strengthen resilience, drive just and forward-looking energy transitions, and champion equity in global decision-making.

COP30’s legacy will be defined not by the words agreed upon in Belém but by the choices nations make. Whether this decade becomes one of vulnerability or of change will depend on India's response, both within its borders and abroad.

Indu K. Murthy heads the Climate, Environment and Sustainability sector at the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP), a research-based think tank.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.