The COP30 climate summit, held in Belém, Brazil, recently concluded. It took place in the Amazon, a region known for its indigenous communities and environmental importance. The summit aimed to address the urgent climate crisis, considering the historical injustices and global inequalities that contribute to it. However, the final agreement was seen as lacking strong commitments, focusing more on acknowledgements and symbolism rather than firm actions.
Despite not meeting all expectations, COP30 highlighted important issues like global inequality, climate justice, accountability, and sustainable growth. For India, the summit’s outcomes are particularly relevant to its agriculture sector. Indian farmers are already facing challenges such as rising temperatures, unpredictable rainfall, and soil degradation. Therefore, global climate policies have a direct impact on their livelihoods. Understanding who is responsible for climate action and who benefits is crucial, especially as the world moves towards reducing carbon emissions.
COP30 was significant because it was the first summit after the Global Stocktake declared that the world is not on track to meet the temperature goals set in the Paris Agreement. Developing countries had hoped for stronger commitments on climate finance and adaptation measures. Scientists also emphasized the need for rapid emission reductions. The summit’s presidency aimed to reintroduce concepts like “justice” and “equity” into climate discussions.
The summit’s results showed some contradictions. While countries agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels,” there was no clear commitment to stop using them completely. Funding for adaptation, which is vital for countries vulnerable to climate change, received only verbal support without concrete targets. A decision on a measurable global goal for adaptation was postponed. Additionally, a new system for reporting agricultural emissions was introduced, which, although voluntary, suggests future obligations.
Agriculture, though not a central topic, became a sensitive area of discussion. This is especially true for countries like India, where agriculture employs a large portion of the population. The sector is highly vulnerable to climate change but receives limited financial protection. Concerns about methane emissions from livestock and rice cultivation, as well as nitrous oxide from fertilisers, are growing. The guidelines adopted at COP30 encourage countries to report agricultural emissions more accurately and adopt “best practices” for mitigation. This indicates a global shift towards recognizing agriculture’s role in reducing emissions.
For India, these developments have significant implications. For instance, reducing methane emissions linked to mixed crop-livestock systems could affect smallholder farmers who rely on these systems. Proposals to reduce cattle numbers, without considering their role in livelihoods, could place an unfair burden on small-scale farmers while large-scale industrial agriculture continues. This represents a technocratic approach that might overlook the realities of small farmers.
Climate finance remained a major point of disagreement. There is a significant gap between the financial needs of developing countries for adaptation and the willingness of developed countries to provide it. Developing nations requested $300-$400 billion annually by 2030 for adaptation, but the final agreement only “encouraged” donors to increase their efforts. The Loss and Damage Fund, intended to help countries cope with climate impacts, received symbolic support but remains underfunded. Developed countries continued to promote private and blended finance options.
The lack of substantial financial commitments from COP30 is a major concern for India. Building climate resilience requires significant public investment in areas like micro-irrigation, water management, diverse farming methods, soil health, and better climate forecasting. These are public goods that need public spending and long-term international financial support. The failure to secure binding financial commitments leaves countries like India facing a growing adaptation deficit.
India’s strategy at COP30 focused on securing climate finance commitments, protecting its policy space for development, and ensuring flexibility in reporting agricultural emissions. India achieved some success by including references to food security and rural livelihoods in the final document. It also managed to avoid binding methane targets for agriculture and ensured voluntary reporting. However, there was no major breakthrough on climate finance or binding obligations.
India’s domestic challenges, including an agrarian crisis worsened by climate change, influence its position in international negotiations. Issues like falling groundwater levels, crop losses, and rising farmer debt make it harder for India to push for transformative agricultural policies globally. Domestic adaptation investments are insufficient, and institutional capacity varies across states.
COP30 saw a renewed discussion on climate justice, driven by Brazil, Indigenous leaders, and the G77+China bloc. The Amazon became a symbol of global environmental concerns and historical exploitation. Indigenous leaders highlighted the impacts of land dispossession and resource extraction, issues that resonate with tribal and forest-dependent communities in India. This focus on justice challenges narrow, technocratic solutions to climate change and addresses the historical roots of the crisis.
However, rhetoric alone is not enough. The real challenge is whether justice will be reflected in financial commitments, technology transfer, and regulations, areas where COP30 made little progress. The summit highlighted the gap between those causing emissions and those suffering the consequences. In India, this disparity is most evident in agriculture, where unpredictable monsoons affect livelihoods and incomes. The future of climate justice in India depends not only on energy and industrial policies but also on the fate of small and marginal farmers. Without global commitments being matched by shared responsibility and domestic policies embracing a transformative vision for agriculture, climate justice will remain an unfulfilled aspiration.