COP30 IS OVER.
ONCE MORE, LESS THAN WE EXPECTED…
COP30 began with torrential rains that flooded the streets around the conference venue and ended with a fire that briefly interrupted the talks. A symbolic framing for a conference on climate change…
Equally symbolic was the choice of Belém, a city at the gateway to the Amazon, perhaps the richest region in the world in biodiversity and one of the most threatened by the climate crisis. A city expanding chaotically, vulnerable to floods, marked by the inequalities and adaptability that characterise the global South, a city that highlights how the vague rhetoric among heads of state and ministers has dramatic consequences for the planet’s citizens.
There were, however, criticisms from some experts and organizations that this choice emphasized symbolism rather than real change. The reason was the “upgrading” works carried out in and around the city to host more than 50,000 participants, and particularly the construction of a major highway through a protected area south of the city, which allegedly destroyed thousands of hectares of rainforest despite local residents’ opposition. The Brazilian government denied the accusations, claiming the project predated COP, however, the road’s construction had been suspended several times due to protests and local outrage, as well as the perceived lack of consultation, and only began in June 2024.
There were also many complaints about practical issues, such as the lack of air conditioning in the conference venues, too few toilets and rest areas, and limited food options, reminiscent of COP27. The biggest problem, however, seemed to be the accommodation cost. The available rooms in the city were insufficient, leading even to the use of cruise ships, while many hotels charged more than $1,000 per night – four times the UN’s usual rate and prohibitive for delegations from many developing countries. Some even claim that this is intentional and constitutes an indirect way of excluding poorer countries from participating in environmental decision‑making, a practice that has been observed systematically in recent COPs.
Another “tradition” of the COPs that was scrupulously maintained was the massive participation of the fossil fuel industry. At the opening, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva denounced disinformation, yet oil companies that have systematically misled the public for decades and obstructed meaningful climate decisions showed up with at least 1,600 lobbyists. Though fewer than at COP28 (2,456) and COP29 (1,773), their presence was proportionally just as powerful, since they formed the second‑largest delegation after that of the hosts. A report for the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) noted that between 2014 and 2023, about 4,000 climate-related disasters affected roughly 1.6 billion people and caused more than $2 trillion in damages. It also highlighted that in 2022–2023 alone, losses reached $451 billion (a 19% increase compared to the previous eight years), and that even single extreme events can now cause damage exceeding the annual GDP of some developing nations. And yet, while the Philippines and Jamaica were recently devastated by typhoons and hurricanes, causing deaths and enormous destruction, oil lobbyists outnumbered their delegations 50 to 1 and 40 to 1 respectively, and were 60% more numerous than the representatives of the ten most climate-vulnerable countries combined.
Once again, harsh disagreements dominated the proceedings. The President of COP30, André Corrêa do Lago, who had called for a broad consensus among countries, stressing that “the people are watching us … and this cannot be an agenda that divides us,” was even forced to suspend the plenary session, which had already run past its scheduled end, when negotiators from several countries refused to agree, accusing him of “gabling” the texts without hearing their objections. The Presidency continued consultations in its offices, and the final text was agreed upon late on Saturday.
Many described the final document as weak and insufficient, and 36 countries, including powerful ones such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, as well as small island states vulnerable to climate change, emphasised that “it does not go far enough.” Panama’s negotiator, Juan Carlos Gómez, declared that “A climate decision that does not even mention fossil fuels is not neutrality, it is complicity … And what is happening here goes beyond incompetence … Science has been erased from COP30 because it offends the polluters.”.
So, let us look at the main outcomes:
- A positive step was that countries agreed to triple adaptation finance. However, the target of $120 billion annually is far below the $300 billion vulnerable nations say they need to protect their citizens effectively, and the deadline for its achievement was postponed to 2035 instead of 2030 as originally proposed. This undermines the effectiveness of the agreement, since climate impacts are intensifying while financial support for weaker economies is slowing down. Many countries stressed that this timeline “ignores the reality of climate disasters,” that the relevant indicators are unclear and inadequate, and inconsistent with previous climate agreements, and that they feel betrayed by the reluctance of powerful economies, such as Japan and the European Union, to take a clear stance.
Although climate finance was not on the official agenda, it dominated discussions, leading to a two-year work program to ensure continued negotiations on implementing the Baku decision, increasing finance to developing countries to at least $1.3 trillion annually by 2035. But yet again, without binding commitments…
- Another positive outcome, warmly welcomed by civil society, was the agreement to establish a Just Transition Mechanism ensuring that the global transition to green economies is fair and protects everyone’s rights. For the first time in the history of COPs a final text is so strong on issues of rights and inclusion, with a Gender Action Plan and references to equality, the empowerment of vulnerable groups, youth and Indigenous peoples, education, and more. However, efforts to include a dedicated financing framework failed, and the implementation details will be finalized at COP31.
- On the critical issue of revising national climate targets to close the gap between pledges and what is needed to stay on the 1.5°C pathway, the outcome was disappointing. More than 70 countries, including China and India, not only failed to submit new targets but also obstructed meaningful negotiations and binding decisions. The result was a feeble agreement for further discussions (!) and the submission of a report at the next COP. With most of the 119 submitted NDCs deemed inadequate, current projections show that emission reductions by 2035 will be only 15% of what is required for 1.5°C, and warming may reach or exceed 2.5°C by the century’s end.
- A group of 90 developed and developing countries pushed for the inclusion of a roadmap for phasing out all fossil fuels. Although the proposal only called for negotiations on how such a transition might take place, around 80 petrostates, including the Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia, as well as Russia and some African nations, fiercely resisted. As a result, the final text contains only a vague reference to the “UAE Consensus,” in a way experts say deliberately weakens and distorts the outcomes of COP28. And this, even as 2025 is expected to be yet another of the hottest years on record, and the “Decarbonization Charter” announced by the oil industry at COP28 has in fact led to hundreds of billions of dollars in new extraction investments over the past year.
Despite this, some hope remains, as Brazil announced a fossil fuel phase-out plan it will advance outside the UN framework, linking it to a “coalition of the willing” led by Colombia and Pacific island nations. The plan begins with high-level consultations among governments, businesses, and civil society, leading to an international conference next April in Santa Marta, Colombia, with the aim of presenting a report at the next COP. President Lula made a public commitment to also bring the phase‑out roadmap to the G20 summit and other global fora.
- The roadmap for the protection of tropical rainforests, promoted by Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva and supported by international organizations, as well as representatives of Indigenous peoples -both inside the conference and in the streets of Belém through large demonstrations- was ultimately not included in the final text because it was linked to the fossil fuel phase-out roadmap. This connection was considered a diplomatic blunder, though some consider it a sabotage by the country’s Foreign Ministry, which openly prioritises oil exports.
The Tropical Forest Recovery Facility announced by Brazil, a new and innovative investment mechanism rewarding forest conservation, also sustains some hope. Hosted by the World Bank, it aims to raise $25 billion in contributions and leverage an additional $100 billion in private capital. So far, only Brazil and Indonesia have contributed, while the UK withdrew its promised support.
It is worth noting that, even though President Lula publicly advocates forest protection and a fossil fuel phase‑out, his government has, nonetheless, given the green light for exploratory drilling in the Equatorial Margin, near the mouth of the Amazon, looking for a potentially massive offshore oil deposit. This ambiguity, unfortunately, characterises many developing countries trying to balance economic development and quality-of-life improvements with sustainability.
- Another point of contention was the so‑called unilateral trade measures, including import regulations related to emissions and deforestation. Several countries objected, arguing that such measures disadvantage them and create imbalances in the global decarbonization process. In the end, a three-year dialogue was agreed within relevant bodies to promote broader international cooperation. This is considered a political victory for China, which -along with other emerging economies like India- has long challenged environmental trade barriers, particularly the EU’s border carbon tax.
At the start of COP30, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared that “the world must follow an orderly and just phase-out of fossil fuels”. When asked whether failure to agree on a roadmap would mean the conference had failed, he diplomatically replied: “this is not the moment to talk about failure, but the moment to prevent failure from happening”.
After the conference, UNFCCC announcements stated that although talks came to the brink of collapse, they resulted in an agreement, showing that 194 countries can cooperate despite increasing geopolitical polarisation.
However, the COP30 agreement was yet another low ambition compromise, full of loopholes and ambiguities, with no plan to move away from fossil fuels or protect forests, and with no commitment from developed countries to increase climate finance.
The conference also made clear the determination of many states to pursue fossil-fuel phase-out and forest protection in parallel but potentially outside the UNFCCC framework, highlighting growing frustration and loss of trust in the COP process.
We can only wait to see what this means in the coming months and at the next COP, which, after an unprecedented decision that followed months of deadlock, will take place in Antalya, Turkey, under the Presidency of… Australia.
