What India can learn from Turkiye’s green leap

Even as India-Turkiye ties face strain over Ankara’s role following the Pakistan-orchestrated attack in Pahalgam, it is worth examining Turkiye’s climate governance leap.

Climate change is a shared existential challenge. On July 2, Turkiye’s Grand National Assembly passed its first climate law, placing its commitments on a legal footing. It sets a 2053 net-zero target, establishes a national Emissions Trading System (ETS), enshrines ‘climate justice’ and ‘just transition’, and mandates institutions such as a climate change directorate, carbon markets board, adaptation bodies, and an EU-aligned Green Taxonomy. Funds and incentives for renewables and resilience planning are also included.

This shift moves Turkiye from aspirational policies to binding obligations for emission cuts, climate finance, and biodiversity. Yet, environmentalists argue the law is ‘far from ideal’.

Strengths and shortcomings

Turkiye’s law stands out for its binding net-zero target and accountability provisions covering public and private actors, shielding policy from reversals. Its multi-level governance model, via provincial boards chaired by governors, recognises the local nature of climate impacts: urban floods, droughts, or wildfires. The ETS and green taxonomy align environmental goals with trade needs, especially given Turkiye’s EU export exposure and the looming Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Enforcement is robust: fines from 500,000 to 5 million Turkish Liras ($12,500-125,000) for reporting breaches demonstrate serious intent.

Yet gaps persist. Sector-specific targets are absent, complicating Paris Agreement alignment. The law omits any fossil fuel phase-out, despite Turkiye’s reliance on coal and gas. There is no independent expert advisory body to provide oversight, raising questions over transparency. Furthermore, continued mining approvals in sensitive zones risk ‘greenwashing’ development. Civil society participation remains constrained, limiting grassroots monitoring, and democratic legitimacy.

Lessons for India

India can learn much from this experiment. First is the move from policy to law. Unlike India’s non-binding climate missions, Turkiye’s statute embeds obligations enforceable by courts, integrating climate governance more deeply within the State apparatus. Second, decentralisation is key. Turkiye’s provincial plans and adaptation strategies could inform India’s states and municipalities, often first responders to floods, droughts, and heatwaves, but they lack in capacity.

The phased ETS also offers a valuable model. By linking with trade imperatives like the CBAM, Turkiye provides a blueprint for India to develop carbon pricing gradually, avoiding disruption while signalling market seriousness. Equally important are its green taxonomy and finance framework. India, despite progress on ESG disclosures and green bonds, still lacks a harmonised classification of climate-aligned investments.

A unified taxonomy would aid investors and streamline capital for low-carbon projects. Turkiye’s legal inclusion of ‘climate justice’ and ‘just transition’ is especially relevant for India’s socio-economic diversity. Communities dependent on fossil fuels need re-skilling, compensation, and alternative livelihoods to ensure fairness in energy transitions.

Finally, Turkiye’s misstep in permitting mining underscores the need for coherence. India, too, must align industrial, energy, and infrastructure policies with its environmental goals to avoid internal contradictions.

India’s unique pathway

Direct replication is neither feasible nor desirable. India’s demographic scale, rural economy, and 79% coal-based power mix demand a tailored approach. A legal framework here must combine emissions reduction with livelihood safeguards and inclusive growth. Capacity-building is another priority.

Just as Turkiye delayed local strategy rollouts until 2027 for training and institutional readiness, India must invest in equipping municipal and state authorities with technical skills and resources. Public participation is where India could excel. Its vibrant civil society, if systematically engaged, could deliver greater transparency, scrutiny, and enforcement than Turkiye’s centralised model.

Harmonising India’s fragmented programmes, from energy efficiency to afforestation, into a single, overarching law could provide clarity. A comprehensive climate Act could unify adaptation, mitigation, finance, and just transition in one enforceable framework.

Towards a climate-legal architecture

Turkiye’s climate law marks an important moment in global environmental governance. For India, its strengths: legal enforceability, decentralisation, and alignment with trade are instructive, as are its weaknesses: lack of sectoral targets, fossil fuel ambiguity, and restricted public input.

India, set to host 1.6 billion people by mid-century, faces mounting climate stresses. Relying solely on voluntary missions is inadequate. By borrowing from Ankara’s experiment while tailoring to Indian realities, New Delhi can forge a statutory framework fit for its scale and complexity.

A thoughtfully drafted climate Act would move India beyond piecemeal schemes towards a co-ordinated, enforceable transition. By embedding equity and coherence, it can deliver not only emissions cuts but also economic resilience and social fairness. For a country balancing rapid urbanisation, coal dependence, and climate vulnerability, the stakes are high.

The lesson from Turkiye is clear: binding, multi-level legislation is not a luxury but an imperative. Done well, it could anchor India’s climate ambition in law, turning disparate efforts into a genuine national transition.

(Former ambassador Anil Trigunayat is a distinguished fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation. Sumit Kaushik is principal adviser, Council for New Economy Research (CNER)).