The Amazon was a symbol of the undeniable urgency with which COP30 commenced. The rainforest, a global stabiliser, was clearly under increasing pressure, setting a context for a conference in which ambition and anxiety went hand in hand. Delegates were greeted with the position that this would be the COP of implementation. By the conclusion of the conference, the world was left pondering whether Belem had advanced climate justice, or it simply rearranged old promises. Similar to the negotiations on plastics in Geneva, COP30 more broadly demonstrated the familiar pattern of some advancement in specific areas, stagnation in other areas, and a continuing tension between the global scientific demands of climate change (from scientists) and what (global) geopolitics will allow.
The Forest Finance Breakthrough: A Step Forward Worth Celebrating
Against this backdrop, one area emerged as a clear bright spot.
The Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) stood out as COP30's most tangible success story among all outcomes. With US$5.5 billion in initial pledges, a robust €1 billion investment from Germany, and support from 53 countries, the TFFF is one of the strongest global commitments to forest protection in decades. Indeed, the draft COP30 decision "recognises the efforts of the COP30 Presidency for the launch of voluntary initiatives like the Tropical Forests Forever Facility", a draft decision that reflects a new way the world will value forests (Draft Mutirão Decision, p.5). For forest nations, many of them located in the Global South, the TFFF is much more than just a financial instrument. It signifies epidemic awareness that forests are a global public good that deserves global public support. COP30 also saw record attendance with over 3,000 Indigenous leaders demonstrating knowledge, testimony and collective demands for a deforestation-free future. Ultimately, however, high-level outcomes and momentum failed to lead to COP30 agreeing to a global roadmap to halt deforestation, a gap identified and reiterated by Indigenous delegations.
Adaptation: A Direction Set, But a Long Way to Go
If forests delivered a clear win, adaptation delivered a clear demand.
At COP30, adaptation was assumed to be a primary demand from developing countries, with Belem responding in part with a political commitment to triple adaptation finance by 2035, in recognition of the long-time calls from climate vulnerability countries that the adaptation gaps had substantially widened. The draft outcome "emphasises the urgent need for public and grant-based resources, particularly for adaptation in developing country Parties" (p.6), and "decides to accelerate efforts to scale up adaptation action and resilience in line with the Global Goal on Adaptation" (p.5). However, despite this forceful framing, several fundamental questions remain unanswered: Who is the proposed provider? How much of the finance will be concessional? How will these contributions be tracked? The announcement of a summit on 'implementation' leaves space for the unfounded, ongoing assumption that political statements do not result in actual delivery.
Climate Finance: Trillions in Vision, Billions in Reality
Finance, as expected, became the negotiation’s heaviest and most politically charged terrain.
The Presidency’s Baku to Belem Roadmap envisions mobilising US$1.3 trillion a year by 2035, which is a clear acknowledgement that the magnitude of the challenge of climate change exceeds available resources. The draft text “calls on all actors to scale financing to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035” (p.6), but there is a stark difference between aspiration and obligation: no country-specific contribution guidelines, no required reforms of multilateral development banks, and no accountability. At the same time, broader economic concerns were shaping the negotiations as trade and climate were fast converging. Several emerging economies, including India, raised concerns about unilateral carbon-border measures, such as the CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism), raising the important point that climate ambition should not be a device for green protectionism or to limit equitable development.
Mitigation: The Silence That Shapes the Story
But amid these gains, a crucial element remained conspicuously absent.
COP30's biggest letdown was the lack of a real mitigation agreement. While more than 80 countries urged a clear vision of phasing out fossil fuels, this language did not make it in the final text. The operative decision merely included a softer reference that "urges Parties to accelerate efforts towards phasing out inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies" (p.4). With emissions needing to rapidly decline over the next decade, this omission is important to reflect the geopolitical fault lines that continue to inhibit global mitigation, from different energy pathways, different development priorities, and different views of fairness. While the omission of a fossil-fuel roadmap is not a shadow over progress made elsewhere, it does reveal the central tension that will currently shape COP31 in the years to come.
India at COP30: Championing Equity and Implementation
In this complex landscape, India’s voice carried particular weight.
India's engagement at COP30 was characterised by transparency and passion, with all of its interventions being devoted to equity, justice, and implementation, concepts that were very popular in the Global South. India framed COP30 as a “COP of Implementation,” highlighting the global frustration with promises that have not come to fruition, and reiterated the importance of CBDR-RC (Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capacities) by stressing that ambition must be fair. It called for “trillions, not billions“ in climate finance, requested a clear definition of climate finance to avoid double-counting, and highlighted significant home-grown progress that demonstrated India's climate efforts, including the achievement of more than 50% of non-fossil fuel installed power capacity 5 years ahead of schedule. On energy transitions, India explained that if a country takes a fossil fuel pathway, it must be "just, equitable, and representative of any national circumstance," echoing its aim of protecting space for developing economies to grow while demonstrating a commitment to navigating a global transition in a fair way. At Belem, India amplified a call that struck a chord in the Global South: climate ambition should not come at the cost of the dignity of development.
Where COP30 Leaves the World
Taken together, these outcomes leave the world at a crossroads.
Although COP30 resulted in outcomes that provided progress but not direction, momentum but not clarity, political commitments but no structural changes needed urgently, the outcomes of Belem will shape climate politics in the years to come as we strengthen forest finance and nature-based cooperation, amplify the narrative around adaptation, broaden recognition of Indigenous leadership, enhance our focus on implementation and transparency, and strengthen global discourse on justice and climate finance. Yet the unanswered questions, especially about fossil fuels, financial commitments, and adaptation metrics, will inform the road to COP31. COP30 did not resolve the climate crisis, but it sharpened the choices before us and made clear that incremental, small moves will no longer suffice.
Add new comment