Subscribe
India sharpened its stance on just transition (JT) at the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), urging a global framework grounded in equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), and nationally determined pathways.
At the third high-level ministerial roundtable on JT on November 20, Union environment, forest and climate change minister Bhupender Yadav stressed that JT must be understood as an economy-wide, people-centred transformation, extending well beyond the energy sector. It must prioritise livelihoods, social protection, resilience, and allow countries to pursue development aligned with their own national circumstances.
India argued that developing countries require full policy space to define their sustainable development pathways, given differentiated starting points, structural vulnerabilities and persistent development gaps. It warned that uniform or prescriptive transition templates would undermine both equity and feasibility. New Delhi also cautioned that unilateral trade measures (UTMs), including carbon border mechanisms, directly threaten fairness under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement by increasing costs, restricting access to technology and finance, and penalising countries with minimal historical responsibility.
Calling for a dedicated Just Transition Mechanism, India said such an instrument is essential to identify implementation gaps and deliver affordable finance, accessible technology and scaled-up capacity-building for developing countries. Without predictable means of implementation, India warned, JT risks becoming rhetorical rather than real. It reiterated that developed countries must meet their Article 9.1 obligations and take rapid, sustained emission cuts, moving to net zero well before developing nations, to free up carbon space.
India further underscored that JT must remain non-sectoral, non-prescriptive and party-driven, covering mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation. It emphasised the need to avoid selective use of global stocktake language and rejected any top-down approaches that could constrain natural resources or dictate national development trajectories. The country concluded that the burden of transition must not fall on those least responsible for the climate crisis, and that strong multilateralism and international cooperation remain indispensable for a fair global transition.
At the beginning of the annual global climate talks at COP30 in Belem, India, speaking for the Like- Minded Developing Countries, echoed the call by G77 plus China for a mechanism rooted in justice and inclusion. “Transitions can very easily be unjust,” the Indian delegate said. “They can deny those who have contributed the least to climate change the right to develop, and burden them with unfair mitigation costs.”
India urged that the just transition work programme (JTWP) be designed to integrate the principle of CBDR and ensure that transitions are people-centred and whole-of-economy. It welcomed the forthcoming Technology Implementation Programme, calling it crucial to driving technology access and enabling developing countries to achieve their Nationally Determined Contributions.
JT emerged as a core political battleground at COP30, following its formalisation under the UAE JTWP at COP28. While developed countries are pushing for actionable pathways linked to the 1.5°C goal and fossil fuel phase-out, developing countries insist that the JT must remain non-prescriptive, economy-wide, and firmly anchored in equity. The debate has sharpened over issues such as transition timelines, trade-linked climate measures, and the balance between mitigation and development priorities.
For India, the issue sits at the heart of its longstanding climate diplomacy: safeguarding development space while calling out inequitable approaches that shift burdens onto developing economies. At Belém, India has positioned itself as a leading voice, urging the UNFCCC to deliver a just transition framework that is inclusive, nationally determined, development-supportive, and firmly grounded in climate justice.