When the world gathers in Belém, Brazil, for COP30 later this month, we are at a pivotal juncture. It has been ten years since the Paris Agreement entered into force, yet the progress on the two most important fronts — reducing emissions and protecting vulnerable people from the increasingly harsh consequences of climate change — remains deeply uneven. The critical question now is not just what we aim for (targets, ambition) but who we prioritise and how we deliver.
Much of the past climate conversation has focused on mitigation: cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, transitioning energy systems, and stopping fossil-fuel growth. And while that remains absolutely essential, it has become abundantly clear that adaptation and resilience are no longer optional — especially for the world’s most vulnerable peoples and places. Heatwaves, floods, super-storms and sea-level rise are already exacting huge tolls. The world cannot wait until emissions fall to begin protecting those who bear the brunt.
One of the central alerts ahead of COP30 is the unfolding adaptation gap. Developing countries alone will need roughly US$310 billion per year by 2035 (rising to perhaps US$365 billion) just to manage the escalating impacts of climate change. Yet current international public adaptation finance flows are only in the order of US$26 billion per year. That means the world is financing only around one-twelfth of what is needed now — even before we scale into 2035.
But beyond the raw numbers, there is another layer of injustice. Financial flows, planning instruments and capacity-building efforts often do not adequately reach those who are socially, economically and geographically marginalised. People who are poorer, who live in informal settlements, island states, low-lying delta regions, remote rural communities — they have fewer buffers, weaker institutions, less insurance, and often struggle to access climate finance or adaptation programmes. Social inequalities make some people more vulnerable than others.
So what should COP30 deliver? At least three interlocking priorities:
1. A credible adaptation-finance package linked to vulnerable communities.
It is not enough to announce a big number of dollars. COP30 must establish mechanisms by which funding is disbursed in ways that reach those who need it most — small-scale farmers facing desertification, coastal communities facing sea-level rise, urban informal dwellers facing heat-waves and flooding. It must prioritise grants and terms favourable to low-income countries, rather than loans that risk deepening debt. Many adaptation finance flows are still in the form of non-concessional loans, which further burden vulnerable countries.
2. A roadmap and global metric for adaptation progress.
Mitigation has relatively well-defined metrics (emissions, carbon intensity, renewables share). Adaptation lacks a single global metric. COP30 should agree on a transparent, inclusive framework: how to track adaptation financing, how to measure resilient outcomes (not just plans on paper), how to ensure transparency and accountability. This must include human-centred indicators: how many people are protected by early-warning systems, how many hectares of land are climate-resilient, how many informal settlements have flood defences, how many small farmers adopt drought-resilient practices.
3. Addressing climate justice through equity, vulnerability and inclusion.
This means recognising that not all people are equally vulnerable – and that some communities have contributed least to the climate crisis yet suffer most. The roadmap must embed a justice lens: gender, poverty, indigenous communities, small island states, least-developed countries. The finance pledged must prioritise adaptation for these groups.
There are a number of reasons the odds are stacked against success—but also signals to watch.
Firstly, while renewable energy investment has surged, global emissions continue to climb. Current policies bring down projected warming by only about one degree Celsius (from 3.6°C to 2.7°C) — still far above the 1.5°C threshold. That means adaptation requirements will continue to increase.
Secondly, adaptation is inherently more complex for financing than mitigation: it tends to involve many small, local, context-specific interventions (flood-defences, resilient agriculture practices, capacity-building) rather than large infrastructure that attract big investors. That means more transaction cost, more institutional complexity, and less “bankable” projects.
Thirdly, there is a risk that the finance offered is in the form of debt, or not targeted at the most vulnerable, or remains locked up in bureaucratic bottlenecks. Many developing nations face “adaptation investment traps” where they borrow more to adapt, thereby increasing debt and reducing future capacity.
For India, the stakes are high. With large populations in low-lying coastal zones, wide agricultural dependence, seasonal extremes and deep socio-economic inequality, adaptation is not an optional add-on — it is a development imperative. Adaptation investment is urgently needed to protect livelihoods, water security, agriculture, and infrastructure across the country.
As someone working in the sustainability and climate-action domain, this is a moment to keep a close watch on COP30 outcomes:
Will there be a finance package anchored in adaptation, with meaningful support for developing countries?
Will the commitments be grants and concessional finance, or debt heavy?
Will there be clear metrics for adaptation progress, especially linked to vulnerable communities?
Will civil society, local communities, indigenous groups have input and ownership in how adaptation finance is allocated?
Will the finance flows be transparent and tracked, i.e., will we know how much reaches the most vulnerable, and what tangible outcomes it produces?
In the end, COP30 in Belém must send a clear message: cutting emissions alone is not sufficient. While mitigation reduces future risk, adaptation addresses present risk. People are already suffering. Lives, livelihoods and cultures hang in the balance. Large deficits in global-warming mitigation mean that countries have to invest more in shielding people from extreme weather events.
If COP30 fails to embed adaptation, equity and the needs of the vulnerable at its core, then we risk yet another summit of big promises and little delivery — while the physically and socially vulnerable pay the highest price. But if we succeed, we move a step closer to climate justice: a world where those least responsible for climate change are not left least protected.
For all of us working in this field — including initiatives on greenhouse gas calculators, plantation drives, community engagement and regional-language outreach — this is a moment to amplify the message: our sustainability initiatives must not only aim high, they must aim equally for those who are most exposed and least equipped. COP30 offers a window. Let us hope it is not another missed opportunity.
A CSR Initiative of
Designed and Executed by
Implemented by
Technology is a useful servant, but a dangerous master, it was rightly said. Electronic devices have grown into an inevitable part of our daily lives.
Leave A Comment