Climate ambition: High. Climate finance: Error 404 (not found)
At COP31, India should push for a just transition, stronger adaptation finance and accountability on existing commitments, while defending multilateral climate negotiations
Visual Credits: Arkatapa Basu
COP31 is being framed as an implementation COP. Yet countries cannot deliver on their climate commitments without the finance, technology and institutions to make them work.
Conversations with climate negotiators and experts suggest that much will depend on whether countries can bridge their differences over finance, fairness and the pace of the transition. For developing countries, these discussions are unfolding as climate impacts mount, borrowing costs remain high and trade measures threaten to make the transition more expensive.
India should push for existing commitments to be honoured, while defending the multilateral process through which countries have agreed to tackle climate change.
Protect the multilateral process
India should make the case for keeping the UN climate process at the centre of negotiations. Initiatives outside it can help drive action, but should not be used to pressure countries or sidestep formal decisions. Agreements are more likely to last when countries find common ground, rather than being pushed into positions that widen existing divisions.
The debate over the timing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Seventh Assessment Report raises a difficult question about how science and climate diplomacy interact. The IPCC’s assessment cycle and the five-year Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement serve different purposes. Their timelines should be considered through transparent procedures that protect scientific integrity. A disagreement over timing should not, by itself, be treated as opposition to climate science.
Finance is another unresolved issue. Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement obliges developed countries to provide financial resources to developing countries. India should defend that commitment and make clear that providing finance is not the same as seeking to mobilise investment from other sources. A new finance target does not settle the question of whether existing obligations are being met.
Make the just transition mechanism work
The proposed just transition mechanism could help countries manage the effects of moving towards low-carbon economies, particularly on workers, communities and livelihoods. The Turkish COP31 presidency is seeking progress on the mechanism. India should press countries to agree on its structure and modalities so that work can begin.
The mechanism must be more than a framework on paper. It should help countries support those who bear the costs of the transition, while recognising that their development pathways differ. Private investment will have a role, but it cannot do everything. Predictable public finance and technology support will remain essential, especially where commercial returns are limited.
Put adaptation and finance at the centre
At COP30, countries called for adaptation finance to be tripled by 2035. Developing countries want a clearer path to that goal, with greater certainty about how much funding will be available and when it will arrive.
India should push for measurable milestones and transparent reporting on progress. Adaptation plans must also reflect the priorities of individual countries and the needs of affected communities. Those decisions should not be shaped primarily by external experts or funding institutions.
The source of the money matters, too. High borrowing costs and mounting debt pressures mean loans cannot be the answer to every adaptation need. India should make the case for accessible, affordable public finance, particularly for projects that protect people and livelihoods but offer little or no commercial return.
Confront the trade contradiction
Climate policy is increasingly caught up in industrial competition and geopolitics. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), for example, has raised concerns about the costs that climate-related trade measures could impose on exporters in developing countries.
India should challenge measures that place a disproportionate burden on developing economies. A trade restriction does not become climate action simply because it is presented in environmental terms. Its effects on countries with fewer resources and less capacity to decarbonise need to be examined.
India will also need to make that argument without letting trade disputes overshadow wider cooperation on climate finance and the energy transition.
From ambition to delivery
India has several priorities to pursue at COP31. It should defend the multilateral process, push for progress on the just transition mechanism, strengthen adaptation finance and hold developed countries to their existing commitments.
The debate over the IPCC’s assessment timeline is part of this wider challenge. Scientific assessments must inform climate negotiations, but their integrity should not be compromised by political considerations.
COP31 will produce no shortage of announcements. The harder question is whether countries leave with a credible path to turning commitments into action. Without finance, institutional support and trust in the process, an implementation COP could become another promise deferred.