As global climate discussions unfold in Bonn, Germany ahead of COP30 in Brazil, India has a crucial chance to shape how agriculture fits into the climate action agenda. These talks, while quieter than the high-profile COP summits, are where the real groundwork for future climate policies is laid.
For India, the stakes are high. The country is home to nearly 120 million smallholder farmers whose livelihoods depend on climate-sensitive agriculture. Their voices, however, rarely shape these discussions.
Agriculture is becoming central in climate talks, not just as a source of emissions but as part of the solution. Yet the focus remains skewed towards cutting emissions a risk for countries like India where farming emissions are about survival, not luxury. India’s agriculture sector contributes just 13.7% of national greenhouse gas emissions compared to 75.7% from energy. These are emissions tied to food security and rural incomes, not wasteful excess.
At the same time, Indian farmers are among the most vulnerable to climate shocks rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, and pest outbreaks threaten crops and livestock. A study on India’s rice-wheat belt predicts farm profits could shrink by up to 17% in coming years due to climate impacts, even in districts not directly exposed to extreme weather. The root causes are poor infrastructure, fragmented landholdings, and weak institutions not climate alone.
This is why India must push for a fairer global climate deal one that focuses not just on cutting emissions but on protecting farmer incomes, food security, and rural development. India’s past reluctance towards global agriculture initiatives came from fears of an excessive mitigation focus. The ongoing Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work offers a fresh chance to set the terms right placing adaptation, resilience, and finance for vulnerable farmers at the centre.
But adaptation funding remains woefully short. Global support for adaptation has stalled at less than $500 million a year, despite rising risks. India’s total climate finance so far about $1.16 billion from UN-backed funds is far below what its size and vulnerability demand. Moreover, many global projects have struggled to deliver lasting results, underlining the need for better planning, local relevance, and stronger monitoring.
India can lead by using evidence-backed arguments to demand more adaptation finance. Research showing where vulnerability is highest, what interventions work best, and how funds can have the biggest impact will strengthen its position at the negotiation table. This is key not only to unlocking money from the Loss and Damage Fund but also to shaping how the world measures climate impacts and recovery.
India also needs to improve its systems for tracking climate losses in agriculture an area still weak, according to government reports. Building this capacity will not only help farmers but also ensure India can access global funds meant for disaster recovery and climate resilience.
As discussions in Bonn shape the agenda for COP30 in Brazil, India’s approach must be firm: support climate-friendly agriculture transitions, but only those that are fair, well-funded, science-driven, and tailored to the needs of small farmers. Imposing global solutions without local flexibility could hurt food production and deepen rural distress.
For India, climate diplomacy is not just about carbon it’s about people, livelihoods, and food. And for millions of Indian families, that story begins in the fields.