Editorial

The conclusion of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil with the announcement of a sweeping “Amazon Pact” has been hailed by many as a landmark moment for global environmental governance. Hosting the summit in the Amazon’s own backyard gave the negotiations symbolic power, and the pact’s core promise—to protect the world’s largest rainforest as a shared planetary responsibility—resonates deeply at a time of accelerating climate breakdown. Yet beneath the applause lies a troubling fog of ambiguity, particularly over funding, enforcement, and accountability.

On paper, the Amazon Pact is bold. It recognises the rainforest not merely as a national asset of South American countries, but as a global climate stabiliser critical to biodiversity, rainfall patterns, and carbon sequestration. Commitments to halt deforestation, strengthen Indigenous land rights, and promote sustainable livelihoods signal a welcome shift from rhetoric to intent. For Brazil, reclaiming climate leadership after years of international criticism adds political weight to the agreement.

However, intent alone does not save forests. The most glaring weakness of the pact is its lack of clarity on financing. Leaders spoke eloquently of “shared responsibility” and “climate justice,” yet stopped short of specifying who will pay, how much, and through which mechanisms. Without concrete numbers, timelines, and legally binding contributions, the pact risks becoming another well-meaning declaration filed away with past unmet climate promises.

This vagueness matters because protecting the Amazon is expensive. It requires sustained investment in monitoring, enforcement against illegal logging and mining, alternative incomes for forest-dependent communities, and climate-resilient development. Developing countries housing the rainforest have long argued—rightly—that they cannot bear these costs alone when the benefits accrue globally. Wealthy nations, meanwhile, continue to hesitate, preferring voluntary pledges over binding obligations.

The pact also raises questions of sovereignty and trust. While international oversight may be necessary to ensure transparency, heavy-handed conditionalities could provoke domestic backlash. Balancing national autonomy with global accountability will be a delicate task, and one the pact leaves largely undefined.

COP30’s Amazon Pact captures the paradox of contemporary climate diplomacy: historic in language, fragile in substance. It reflects growing recognition that incrementalism is no longer enough, yet it shies away from the hard political choices that real solutions demand. If the pact is to become more than a symbolic victory, its architects must quickly translate promises into funded, enforceable action.

The Amazon does not have the luxury of waiting. Every year of delay narrows the margin for recovery. COP30 may be remembered as a turning point—but only if the world proves willing to pay the price of its own promises.

The introduction of the Securities Markets (Codification and Rationalisation) Bill, 2025, in the Lok Sabha marks a watershed moment for India’s financial landscape. This long-awaited legislation is not merely an amendment but a transformative consolidation, aiming to replace the fragmented web of three decades of securities laws with a single, coherent, and contemporary code. Its primary objective—to enhance ease of doing business while bolstering investor protection—is precisely the reform needed to propel India’s markets into a new era of growth and global competitiveness.

At its heart, the Cod Bill is an exercise in simplification. By integrating the SEBI Act, 1992, the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and the Depositories Act, 1996, it seeks to eliminate redundancies, clarify legal ambiguities, and create a unified regulatory architecture. For market participants, from large institutional investors to retail traders, this promises greater regulatory certainty, reduced compliance burdens, and a more transparent rulebook. Such clarity is indispensable for attracting long-term domestic and foreign investment, fostering innovation in products like green bonds and REITs, and building deeper capital markets.

Crucially, the bill recognizes that simplification must go hand-in-hand with strengthened oversight. By potentially broadening SEBI’s regulatory and enforcement remit, it arms the watchdog with sharper teeth to tackle modern market malfeasance—be it complex cyber-fraud, insider trading in new-age instruments, or governance lapses. This enhanced authority, if balanced with appropriate checks and balances, can deter malpractices more effectively, thereby fortifying the very trust that underpins market participation. The common investor stands to gain from a regime where rules are clearer, enforcement is swifter, and confidence in the system’s integrity is higher.

However, the devil, as always, will lie in the details yet to be fully unveiled. The success of this codification will depend on the fine print and the subsequent rule-making. It is imperative that the consultative process with all stakeholders remains robust, ensuring the final law is both rigorous and pragmatic. The legislation must carefully delineate the boundaries of regulatory power to avoid overreach, while ensuring adequate safeguards for investor rights and fair adjudication processes.

In conclusion, the Securities Markets Cod Bill 2025 is a bold and necessary step. It reflects a forward-looking vision to align India’s regulatory framework with the dynamism of 21st-century finance. As Parliament deliberates on this landmark bill, the focus must remain on crafting a law that is not just consolidated but also intelligent, resilient, and primed to secure India’s position as a stable and thriving financial powerhouse. The nation’s economic ambitions deserve nothing less.

• SAS Kirmani