인도가 COP33 개최 입찰을 포기한 이유

India has quietly abandoned its bid to host the UN's top-tier climate conference COP33, marking a shift from PM Narendra Modi's pledge in 2023. Experts and analysts explore what's behind the decision.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi took the stage at the Dubai climate summit in December 2023, he pledged that India would host the climate conference. It was a moment of ambition, a signal that India was ready to lead, particularly as a self-declared voice of the Global South.

The bid to be host from the UN's Asia-Pacific Group was supported by the BRICS group of Brazil, China, India and South Africa in July 2025.

But just 18 months later, India quietly withdrew in a four-paragraph letter dated April 2, according to Climate Home News, which first broke the story.

The annual Conference of the Parties or COP is the United Nations climate summit where 198 parties — 197 countries plus the European Union — gather to measure progress and negotiate responses to climate change. Hosting the conference confers status, agenda-setting power, diplomatic visibility and a platform to shape the global conversation.

Experts and policy analysts say that India's withdrawal reflects a shift in global priorities, with COP wielding less status than previously amid global instability and the pull of priorities at home.  In recent years, the global climate consensus has weakened. The Paris Agreement, the 2015 global pact under which countries set voluntary national targets to limit global warming, has been under increasing strain, particularly with the Trump administration withdrawing the US from the agreement for the second time.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

"One of the key reasons for India's withdrawal appears to be the steadily declining relevance of COP in driving meaningful global climate action," said Chandra Bhushan, head of the Delhi-based International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology.

"The complete erosion of trust among countries at the Belem summit in Brazil, where several nations reneged on previously agreed commitments, seems to have been the tipping point," added Bhushan. 

There was low attendance and little high-level political engagement at the summit, including the US, which notably sent no high-level attendees.

Bhushan points out that India has demonstrated its willingness to engage in climate multilateralism: it recently updated its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for the years 2031-35 — the name for countries' climate action plans under the Paris Agreement: India has pledged to cut the emissions intensity of its economy by 47% from 2005 levels by 2035, ensure that 60% of its installed power capacity comes from non-fossil fuel sources, and create an additional carbon sink of 3.5 to 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide through increased forest and tree cover.

But there is now a growing consensus within the country that domestic climate action will be central to achieving sustainable development. "This approach is likely to continue until more favourable conditions emerge for genuine and effective multilateral cooperation,” Bhushan explained.

In this environment, hosting a summit carries diminishing returns. While the symbolic value remains, the ability to extract meaningful outcomes or even global attention has become less certain.

Abinash Mohanty, global sector head of climate change and sustainability of IPE Global, an international development organisation, views India's withdrawal as pragmatic.

"First, the global system is falling short. Developed countries promised $100 billion (€ 91.4 billion) per year by 2020 in climate finance, but have repeatedly under-delivered. Even newer pledges, like $300 billion (€273 billion) annually by 2035, cover only a fraction of what developing countries need. At the same time, the US has weakened trust by exiting the Paris Agreement twice,” Mohanty told DW.

For countries like India, which have consistently emphasised equity and climate finance, the imbalance becomes harder to ignore, according to Mohanty.

In Mohanty's estimate, India has delivered at home by crossing 50% non-fossil installed capacity, reaching 200GW of installed renewable energy capacity and cutting emissions intensity by over a third since 2005, largely using its own resources rather than external funding. 

"Hosting COP33 would come at a cost. It would mean spending significant money and political capital to support a global process that, from India's perspective, has not delivered fairly for the Global South," argues Mohanty.

"Instead, India is shifting strategy, focusing on platforms it can shape more directly, like the International Solar Alliance and similar coalitions," he added.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Hosting COP33 would have placed India at the centre of the next global stocktake cycle. This is the mechanism under the Paris framework that assesses collective progress on emissions reductions and climate goals.

For India, this would mean intensified scrutiny of its coal dependence, emissions trajectory, and timelines for transition. While India has made significant strides in implementing renewable energy, it is still the world's second-largest consumer and producer of coal.

Jayanta Basu, a Kolkata-based environment and climate correspondent, told DW, "As host, India would have faced pressure to show stronger climate action on future targets, timelines for cutting emissions, and its reliance on coal — especially with a global review of progress coming up under the Paris Agreement," he said.

Basu suggests that India's government is recalibrating its priorities ahead of the 2029 general elections. "With multiple demands on the system, the government may have chosen to focus on domestic priorities and other big events instead," Basu said.

Additionally, hosting the conference could amplify pressure from countries and climate advocates alike, potentially constraining policy flexibility at home, which could be bad timing ahead of the elections. "The heightened scrutiny will be not just of India's domestic energy choices but also of India's engagement with dissenting and activist voices, non-state actors, and civil society,” said Rajamani.

"I would characterize the global climate consensus as 'biding its time' rather than weakening," Lavanya Rajamani, Professor of International Environmental Law at the University of Oxford, told DW.

"India's withdrawal is more likely driven by domestic factors, but it comes at a time when international attention is sufficiently diverted that the decision will have fewer political and reputational consequences," said Rajamani. "It is, however, a missed opportunity for India to assume a leadership role in this space," she added.

For now, India appears to be choosing its performances on the world stage more carefully.

Edited by: Kate Martyr