The just-concluded climate conference in Belém, Brazil marked ten years of the 2015 Paris Agreement. With its focus on implementation, COP30 sought to turn climate promises into verifiable action.
The framework of indicators on the Global Goal on Adaptation was agreed along with the Just Transition work programme. The adoption of the Belém Gender Action Plan for 2026-2034 marked a clear progress for equality. Another important outcome was the launch of a two-year Work Programme on Article 9 (Finance), a long-standing ask of India and the developing world. And one of the most anticipated documents at COP30—the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap—set an aspiration to mobilise $1.3 trillion a year by 2035, in an effort to align finance flows with the scale of need. Yet as the curtains close on Belém, tough questions remain. How realistic is this ambition when past promises have struggled even to reach a tenth of their mark?
For decades, scientists have warned that climate change would spare no one. That truth is now visible across the developed world, long insulated from the worst impacts. Melting glaciers in the Alps, heatwaves across Europe, and wildfires in North America show that climate change is no longer an “us versus them” issue.
This should have been a wake-up call for developed countries to take responsibility. Instead, the instinct has been familiar: Protect your own first. This is now shaping the climate finance debate.
Also read: Quit stalling & pay up — what’s climate finance and why rich countries must step up urgently
The widening finance gap
A study by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) estimates that developing countries will require $3.2 trillion a year by 2035 to stay on a climate-compatible pathway.
Against this, the Circle of Finance Ministers’ report at COP30 offered a stark contrast: Global climate finance reached $1.9 trillion in 2023, but only about 10 per cent flowed to developing countries. Even more concerning is that less than five per cent supported adaptation.
The Baku to Belém Roadmap proposes five ‘R’s’—replenishing, rebalancing, rechannelling, revamping, and reshaping the financial system. But it does not specify who pays how much or when. There is still no clarity on what different developed countries will contribute. And by merging public, private and domestic flows into a single headline figure, the framework risks blurring the central importance of public finance, especially for adaptation. And by asking developing countries to create new “country platforms” and enabling environments, it shifts responsibility back to those with the least fiscal space.
As rich nations spend heavily to protect their own citizens from climate impacts, there is decreasing political appetite to fund developing countries. But the capacity to cope and recover differs vastly. For a fisherwoman in Assam or a farmer in Ethiopia, the consequences for livelihoods due to extreme climate events are much more severe than those in the developed world, protected by much stronger social security nets. The inequality shows why climate finance is not charity, it is structural fairness. Those who contributed most to the problem more must help those who now face the impacts.
While the $1.3 trillion goal is ambitious, developing countries have learnt, often painfully, to distinguish between numbers announced and money delivered. Holding developed countries accountable to fulfil their pre-2020 $100 billion per year promise turned into a decade-long exercise over delivery and accounting and that acrimonious memory still lingers.
Today’s geopolitics—inflation, conflicts, fragmentation—makes new pledges harder. But realism cannot become an excuse for retreat. While delivering on commitments may be difficult, delaying action will come at the expense of the so-called Global South’s poorest and most vulnerable.
Also read: Climate adaptation, finance & actions—the post-COP30 battles in which India’s voice can matter
The missing half of the equation
Finance alone cannot stabilise the planet. Every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted makes climate impacts more severe. Developed countries often argue that their public finances are stretched. Yet their per-capita emissions tell another story.
CEEW estimates show that per-capita emissions in countries such as the United States, Australia and Japan are between eight and 17 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person, while in developing countries such as India, the level is below 2.5 tonnes. This stark difference underscores the need for deeper emission cuts and lifestyle changes in the developed world, beyond their finance pledges.
Without rapid cuts by high emitters, global cost of action will keep rising and the poorest will pay the highest price.
The global North’s credibility is measured not just by how much it pays but also how it lives. This is where India’s Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment) offers a practical pathway. It shifts climate action to everyday habits—cutting waste, reusing materials, conserving energy, and reducing excess consumption. If adopted globally, even small behavioural shifts by millions can ease pressure on natural resources, cut emissions, and make climate action broadly accessible.
A new compact for cooperation
The post-Belém world must move beyond North versus South, public versus private, finance versus emissions debate. The future of climate cooperation lies in mutual recognition of strengths and challenges. In the spirit of the Paris Agreement, both developed and developing countries need to join forces, recognising differentiated responsibilities and capabilities, to help the multilateral process recover. For developed countries, this means not shifting the burden onto poorer nations, nor relying solely on private finance, while public commitments diminish.
Climate finance must remain predictable, adequate, and fair, especially for adaptation and loss and damage, where private capital rarely treads. This should be complemented with deeper per capita emission cuts and urgent lifestyle changes.
At the same time, developing countries must lead by example: Building stronger pipelines for green investment, ensuring that every dollar of finance builds resilience, restores ecosystems, and creates livelihoods. Multilateral development banks must also evolve—from cautious lenders to genuine partners in risk-sharing and implementation.
Also read: Circular finance can solve the climate action funding problem. And India can lead the way
Moving ahead
As the world moves forward it must abandon two illusions: That climate finance is unlimited and that our own perceived limitations are an excuse to do less. The real task is to bring ambition and realism together. The developed world cannot claim climate leadership, while resisting lifestyle change. The developing world cannot achieve sustainable growth without affordable finance and technology. The true measure of success in the post-Belém world will not be a trillion-dollar headline but a shift in perception: From climate finance as charity to climate action as shared investment in our collective future.
Ravi S. Prasad is Distinguished Fellow at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) and former Chief Climate Change Negotiator for India. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)