"Climate finance under Article 9.1 is an obligation, not charity." Examine India's position in light of the outcomes at Baku and Belém.

Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement says developed countries "shall" provide finance to developing countries. That wording creates a legal duty, not a voluntary gift [1]. India's position rests on this. The Baku (COP29) and Belém (COP30) outcomes show both how strong the claim is and how far delivery falls short.

India's position: why finance is an obligation

• Equity and CBDR: historical emitters must pay. Finance must be predictable, largely public, concessional and not debt-creating [1][5].
• No agreed definition: speaking for the LMDC at Baku, India said there is no common understanding of what climate finance is [2]. Without one, any target can be met on paper.

Baku (COP29): a goal below the need

• India sought USD 1.3 trillion a year, with USD 600 billion as grants or grant-equivalent [3].
• The NCQG commits developed countries to lead on only USD 300 billion a year by 2035. The USD 1.3 trillion is just a call on "all actors" [4].
• India called the outcome contrary to equity and CBDR. It objected to counting MDB flows, because developing countries are MDB shareholders too [5].

Belém (COP30): partial gains

• India welcomed the "long-overdue focus on Article 9.1" and the Just Transition Mechanism [6].
• India warned that the Glasgow goal of doubling adaptation finance by 2025 may be missed, and asked for grants, not debt [7].
• UNEP data supports this warning: adaptation flows fell to USD 26 billion in 2023, against needs of USD 310–365 billion a year by 2035 [8].

Critical assessment

• Counter-view: the OECD reports the USD 100 billion goal was met in 2022, at USD 115.9 billion [9]. Grants alone cannot reach trillions. India's "voluntary" stance on other issues also weakens its leverage.
• Rebuttal: 69% of public climate finance came as loans [9]. "Goal met" is not the same as "support given", and loans add to the debt of the countries least responsible for emissions.

Way forward

• Fix counting rules through the Climate Finance Work Programme India wants at COP31 [1]. This should happen before the first NCQG progress report in 2028 [4].
• Count finance at grant-equivalent value, and keep adaptation money mainly in grants.
• Show credibility through results at home, such as the 26 Mha land-restoration target by 2030 [1].

Baku produced a number and Belém revived Article 9.1, but neither has yet turned the obligation into flows that are accountable and mostly grants. At Antalya, India should push for a common definition and transparent counting, so that finance is delivered as a legal duty. That would match CBDR, climate justice and SDG 13.