From Bharat to Bonn, we must put farmers at the heart of climate talks

This year, at 30th Conference of Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Belém, Brazil, representatives from nearly 200 countries will convene to advance ambitious climate finance commitments and national actions aligned with the 2015 Paris Agreement. But before world leaders gather in the Amazon, the groundwork is being laid in a quieter, technical setting: The mid-year climate conference in Bonn, Germany — formally known as the 62nd session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) — taking place from June 16 to 26, 2025.

These intersessional meetings shape the hard scaffolding of global climate policy. Often overshadowed by the high drama of the COP summits, they bring together national delegates, international organisations and independent experts for preparatory discussions and technical workshops that influence the direction of global climate action. For countries like India, they offer a crucial window to influence how agriculture, food systems and climate resilience are integrated into the post-Paris implementation phase.

One such opportunity will be the in-session workshop on June 17 under the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work (SJW) on the implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security. Framed around a “systemic and holistic approach” to food system transformation, it signals a shift: Agriculture is no longer peripheral to climate policy, it is now central to both the problem and the solution.

Yet the real question remains: Whose agriculture and whose voice?

India, home to nearly 120 million smallholder farmers, has more at stake in these conversations than most. But when the language of climate diplomacy shifts towards “systemic transitions” and “mitigation opportunities in agriculture”, it often obscures the development realities of countries like ours. If global climate negotiations are to serve the interests of Indian farmers, they must be grounded not just in ambition, but in context — and in evidence.

A balancing act for India

India faces a dual imperative in the global climate discourse: To contribute meaningfully to mitigation efforts, while safeguarding the livelihoods of millions of smallholders and ensuring food and nutritional security for a growing population. This balancing act is especially delicate in agriculture — a sector that is highly vulnerable to climate shocks yet contributes relatively little to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

According to India’s latest Fourth Biennial Update Report (BUR-4), agriculture accounts for just 13.7 per cent of national GHG emissions, compared to 75.7 per cent from the energy sector. Moreover, these are not “luxury emissions” but “survival emissions”, rooted in rice-livestock systems that ensure food and income security. Such systems are hard to substitute or decarbonise without causing profound social disruption.

But emissions are only part of the story. Vulnerability is the other — and arguably more urgent — dimension. The sector is already facing the brunt of climate change: Rising temperatures, erratic monsoons and shifting pest and disease patterns. 

Recent evidence from the Trans- and Upper-Gangetic Plains — India’s rice-wheat heartland and home to high-density livestock systems — underscores this vulnerability. A 2022 study by Bishwa Bhaskar Choudhary and this author projected that under RCP 4.5 climate scenarios, farm gross margins per hectare in the region could decline by 10-14 per cent over 2010-2039, with peak losses reaching 17 per cent by 2030-39.

These are not just climate risks, they are livelihood shocks. Crucially, the analysis revealed that vulnerability was driven more by high sensitivity and weak adaptive capacity than by climatic exposure alone. Among the 40 most vulnerable districts, two-thirds had only moderate or low exposure to meteorological risks, yet still suffered due to environmental stress, fragmented landholdings, weak institutions and poverty.

This asymmetry must shape India’s climate stance: Farmers contribute little to the climate crisis, yet suffer its most damaging effects. The principle of “ambition without injustice” should guide India’s engagement in climate negotiations on agriculture.

India’s past wariness towards initiatives like the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture stemmed from concerns over its mitigation bias and inadequate attention to adaptation finance and food security. The SJW, launched at COP27, offers a second chance to reframe the debate — placing the unique challenges of developing economies like India at the heart of global agricultural policy.

Why research matters for bridging adaptation gap

For countries like India, adaptation is not a policy choice but a developmental imperative. Yet the world continues to underinvest in it.

The 2024 United Nations Environment Programme Adaptation Gap Report paints a worrying picture: Grant-based finance across all sectors, from the Adaptation Fund, Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Global Environment Facility (GEF), has stagnated at less than $500 million annually for over five years, despite escalating climate impacts, especially in vulnerable economies.

India’s experience reflects this constraint. While the country has accessed funds from multilateral channels, the scale remains modest. So far, India has received $1.16 billion for climate projects through the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC. This includes $803.9 million from the Green Climate Fund, $346.52 million from the Global Environment Facility (for the climate change focal area) and $16.86 million from the Adaptation Fund. Given the country’s size, population and vulnerability, these numbers are clearly inadequate.

But the gap is not just financial, it is also institutional and knowledge-based. The same UNEP report reviewed 168 completed adaptation projects (22 per cent in agriculture) and found that only 79 per cent were rated satisfactory or moderately satisfactory in outcomes. Even more concerning, just over half were likely to sustain their results post-project. This signals a need not just for more money, but for better-designed, context-specific and technically sound projects—especially in agriculture, where adaptation involves complex interactions between climate, crops, soils, water and livelihoods.

The link between research and negotiation is crucial. Negotiators, however capable, cannot carry the burden alone. They need a pipeline of rigorous, policy-relevant research to back their claims and shape their demands. To be effective at the negotiation table, India must go equipped with evidence—on regional vulnerabilities to justify targeted funding, research-based prioritisation of interventions that yield high co-benefits for climate resilience and rural development and stronger monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) frameworks to assure funders of accountability and impact.

These are not merely implementation concerns — they are strategic negotiation tools. India’s negotiators, drawing upon grounded research, can argue for new modalities of climate finance that reward systemic, scalable adaptation solutions tailored for smallholder contexts. Research can also help demonstrate absorptive capacity and impact potential, two key factors influencing fund disbursement decisions.

The same holds true for the nascent Loss and Damage Fund, operationalised after years of persistent advocacy from developing countries. Accessing this fund will require robust MRV systems that can attribute damages to climate events, assess the limits of adaptation and track residual losses over time.

Currently, India's MRV capacity in agriculture, as acknowledged in BUR-4, remains weak. These are areas where Indian research institutions, if better aligned with policy needs, can play a transformative role, not only in securing funds but also in shaping global frameworks to better reflect the realities of the Global South.

Grounding climate diplomacy in science and strategy

The Bonn workshop is not a sideshow. It is the staging ground for what gets finalised at COP30 in Belém and beyond. Decisions made — or delayed — now will shape how climate action in agriculture is resourced, measured and governed for years to come.

As the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work continues into its second year, India should push for institutional convergence, bringing together researchers, implementers and negotiators to co-develop strategies that make both the scientific and political case for agricultural resilience. Otherwise, we risk entering COP30 with well-intentioned ambition but little to show in terms of enabling frameworks.

India need not resist transitions towards climate-friendly agriculture. But it must insist that these transitions be just, science-based and equitable. Imposing a one-size-fits-all mitigation mandate—without flexibility, finance, or attention to local contexts — would not only be unfair but potentially dangerous, undermining food production and exacerbating rural distress.

Climate diplomacy must represent not just emissions but lives. And in India, those lives begin in the fields.

Smita Sirohi is agricultural economist at  ICAR agri education division and former joint secretary (G20), Department of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare, Government of India

Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth