COP30 OUTCOMES: BABY STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, FAILURE TO RISE TO THE OCCASION

Ghastly warnings from science. Daily storms and sweltering heat in the Amazon. Long-drawn-out negotiations. A slippery geopolitical environment. A long shadow cast by the absence of the United States. A lobbyists’ playground. And a fire. COP30 in Belém, Brazil, had all the ingredients of high drama.  

The two-week event began with a reminder of what the world must do to save humanity and protect the planet: more. More finance. More accountability. More unity. 

Granted, the Paris Agreement is ‘‘working to deliver real progress” in the world. UN climate chief Simon Stiell, however, beseeched world nations to “strive valiantly for more.” 

In the end, that courage to do more was lacking in the outcome as Parties failed to agree on a roadmap to guide the phaseout of fossil fuels, deliver finance for adaptation, and renew their commitment to cutting emissions.  

But what stood out about this COP? What were the hits, the misses, and the lessons? In this blog, we will analyse what climate justice experts from around the world said about the summit outcomes.  

While acknowledging the fractured geopolitical atmosphere that hung above the talks in Belém, the director of Power Shift Africa, Mohamed Adow, noted: ‘‘COP30 gave us some baby steps in the right direction, but considering the scale of the climate crisis, it has failed to rise to the occasion.’’  

Roadmap to Transition Away from Fossil Fuels 

As negotiations grew more intense and the clock ticked to the end, the European Union and the UK insisted that the final deal must include language on transitioning away from fossil fuels. The countries vowed to reject any deal without the roadmap that had been proposed by Brazil as one of the key pillars of the Belém package. Last week, more than 80 countries threw their weight behind the proposal.  

Meanwhile, a coalition of oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, said any mention of fossil fuel was ‘‘off-limits’’ even as China, India and Russia rejected the proposal.   

To prevent the talks from collapsing, the EU agreed on Saturday morning not to block a final deal. Said EU’s climate commissioner, Wopke Hoekstra: ‘‘We support (the deal) because at least it is going in the right direction.’’ 

Reacting to the outcome, Mohamed Adow, however, observed that rich countries cannot make a genuine call for a roadmap ‘‘if they continue to drive in the opposite direction themselves and refuse to pay up for the vehicles they stole from the rest of the convoy.’’ 

Delayed a Decade: Adaptation Finance  

Belém restored some integrity to the Global Goal on Adaptation, removing dangerous indicators that would have penalised poorer countries simply for being poor. Finance negotiations, however, were characterised by worrisome sluggishness.  

‘‘The promise to triple adaptation lacks clarity on a base year and has now been delayed to 2035, leaving vulnerable countries without support to match the escalating needs frontline communities are facing. As it stands, this outcome does nothing to narrow the adaptation finance gap,’’ argued Mohamed Adow. 

Saada Mohamed agreed, noting that COP30 ‘‘tripled trouble’’ for adaptation finance, signalling an uncertain future. 

‘‘This year’s summit was particularly unique as it aimed to shift the focus of the multilateral process from negotiation to urgent and scalable implementation, including for adaptation,’’ Saada said. 

She added: ‘‘The Presidency equated global climate adaptation as the first half of survival and a critical component of human evolution that can no longer be deemed as secondary to mitigation nor considered an alternative to development.’’ 

This political elevation and early wins for adaptation were, however, short-lived, as they failed to translate into a strong outcome. 

The Belém political package ‘‘calls for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035’’ and ‘‘urges developed country Parties to increase the trajectory of their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country Parties.’’   

‘‘The weak language sets the worst precedence in the history of the negotiations by failing to specifically refer to the legal mandate of rich countries to provide public finance for adaptation. Consequently, it further marginalises adaptation action and the voices of vulnerable countries,’’ Saada noted. 

BAMtastic: Wins for the Just Transition  

Among the green shoots to emerge from COP30 was the creation of a Just Transition Action Mechanism, a breakthrough that civil society, workers, and frontline communities fought hard for, said Adow. ‘‘This recognises that the global move away from fossil fuels will not abandon workers and frontline communities.’’ 

The executive director of CAN International said this outcome ‘‘didn’t fall out of the sky.’’ Rather, the win was shaped by years of pressure from civil society.  

‘‘It was carved out through struggle, persistence, and the moral clarity of those living on the frontlines of climate breakdown. Governments must now honour this Just Transition mechanism with real action,’’ said Tasneem, warning that anything less would be to betray people – and of the promise of Paris. 

Senior campaigner at Power Shift Africa, Karabo Mokgonyana, too, welcomed the Belém outcome, saying it had ‘‘finally grounded just transition in justice’’ by recognising equity, inclusivity, and the developmental needs of workers and communities, not just sectors or technologies.  

‘‘The outcome signals the first real steps toward what could evolve into a Just Transition Action Mechanism, by outlining concrete areas of support rather than leaving the concept abstract or aspirational,’’ she wrote.  

Europe’s Betrayal of the Global South 

The director of Satat Sampada Climate Foundation said the European Union had a chance to lead in the US’s absence.  

‘‘Instead, they stepped into the vacuum as the primary obstructionist, playing a cynical blame game while the planet burns,’’ Harjeet said.  

While noting that the world has the architecture to address the crisis, he argued that rich nations were setting the Global South up ‘‘to fight an inferno with a water pistol’’ by withholding the finance to power the transition, which is a betrayal. 

For Adow, COP30 was supposed to have a big focus on raising funds to help vulnerable nations adapt to climate change, before European nations undermined the talks and stripped away the protections poor countries were seeking in Belém.  

‘‘Europe, which colonised much of the Global South and then imperilled it further through its industrialised carbon emissions, now works against even efforts to help it adapt to the climate crisis,’’ said Adow. 

Despite calling themselves climate leaders, developed countries of the Global North betrayed their climate-vulnerable developing counterparts, said Adow. ‘‘They failed to deliver science-aligned national emission reduction plans, but also blocked talks on finance to help poor countries adapt to climate change caused by themselves.’’ 

Unilateral Trade Measures 

This was a major talking point at COP30, both at the presidency level and in negotiations. For many people following the climate talks, however, it was likely a new phrase. But what are they? 

Unilateral trade measures are actions a country takes on its own to restrict or alter trade without the agreement of other countries, often outside of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Imposing tariffs, sanctions, or embargoes are some of the UTMs countries can take to protect domestic industries, punish unfair practices, or advance climate goals.  

Some parties view these measures as counterproductive to developing economies, as they create imbalances in decarbonising the global economy.  

Karabo said COP30 yielded ‘‘a well-balanced diplomatic position’’ that recognises the clash between trade and development. ‘‘The outcome acknowledges rising global tensions around climate-related trade policies like CBAM. Importantly, it reminds developed countries not to impose measures that undermine developing countries’ growth pathways.’’ 

Paragraphs 55 and 56 of the Mutirão outcome stress that climate action must operate within a supportive, open, and fair international economic system. It also cautions against unilateral climate-linked trade restrictions becoming arbitrary, unjustifiable discrimination or disguised barriers. 

Parties also agreed to hold three dialogues at the subsidiary bodies (SBs) on enhancing international cooperation on the subject and to report the outcomes at a high-level event in 2028. 

Gender Action Plan Finally Agreed 

Agreeing a gender action plan to mainstream women’s experiences in climate action and make climate policy more inclusive was one of the most anticipated outcomes at COP30. At one point, however, countries clashed over the definition of gender, with hardline conservative states pushing to define gender as “biological sex” while excluding trans and non-binary people. 

This was met with fierce opposition from gender rights advocates, who argued that this would erode progress made over the years. “There are some countries that want to push us back to 30 years ago. But we will not accept anything less than what we already have,” remarked Lorena Aguilar of Kaschak Institute for Social Justice for Women and Girls. 

The talks ended successfully, highlighting several essential elements, including the use of disaggregated data and gender analysis for decision-making and collaboration among gender, climate change, and other relevant actors to advance gender-responsive climate action.  

Gender enthusiasts say the call to integrate gender in national climate policies and plans, as well as reporting and communications under the UNFCCC, will help to ensure there is accountability for implementing these commitments across the different streams of climate action. 

Loss and Damage  

Harjeet observed that the institutional framework for Loss and Damage is now ‘‘fit for purpose’’ stating, though: ‘‘A system cannot rebuild a home without money. Bureaucratic pledges cannot feed a family whose crops have failed.’’ 

The final agreement, he insisted, should have sent a clear instruction to the historical polluters to act urgently. That is, ‘‘to put hundreds of billions into the new Loss and Damage Fund in grants, not loans, to survive the wreckage caused by two centuries of their reckless emissions.’’ 

Overall? There’s general satisfaction with the Belém package among diverse experts globally. 

Said Adow: ‘‘Even though COP30 didn’t achieve what we hoped, the very fact that fossil fuels, trade, and the needs of the vulnerable were on the agenda is welcome. These are urgent, real-world issues that will not go away until action is taken.” 

Adow noted that while COP30 kept the process alive, ‘‘process alone’’ will not cool the planet. 

‘‘Roadmaps and workplans will mean nothing unless they now translate into real finance and real action for the countries bearing the brunt of the crisis,’’ he warned.  

Said Harjeet: ‘‘We leave Belém with a historic victory for people power, but a devastating failure of political will from the Global North to deliver climate ambition and finance.’’