Boats resting on the waters of the Amazon river in Belém, Brazil.
getty
The headlines after COP30 were quick to dub the outcome in Brazil “watered-down” and “insufficient.” Yet there is nuance. “To call it a disappointment is, I think, too simple. It is more of a mixed bag,” said Dr. Champa Patel, Executive Director of Climate Group. Her organization runs two big sets of networks: corporate demand-side campaigns like RE100 and EV100, as well as a network of subnational governments, including states, regions, and provinces with regulatory or fiscal powers. She represented the latter at COP30.
First, there was an issue of inflated expectations for COP30, paired with geopolitical difficulties. After the disappointment of COP29, there was a lot of expectation on the Brazilian presidency, probably more than they could reasonably meet in the current geopolitical context. The US withdrew from the Paris Agreement once again and did not participate. Argentina under Javier Milei adopted an openly anti-climate posture. It was a difficult context in which to deliver a transformative COP.
Moreover, a year after COP29, there was still a lack of clarity on the commitment to funnel a minimum of $300 billion annually toward developing countries’ climate action by 2035. With the true need close to $1.3 trillion per year, developed nations agreed in Baku during COP29 to take the lead in achieving this “new collective quantified goal,” or NCQG. But the operational questions remained: Should this be financed solely by developed countries? Would it be a larger fund supported by many? COP30 was expected to resolve this. It did not.
The original Paris Agreement committed developed countries to raise 100 billion to support developing countries. As historical emitters, their responsibility was to fund climate action in countries that had not caused the problem. Most financing went to mitigation; very little went to adaptation.
The new goal was renegotiated in Azerbaijan and became highly controversial. With rising energy costs and inflation in developed countries, developing nations did not want an overly ambitious target. They landed on $300 billion, modest relative to need, and added an aspirational $1.3 trillion figure with private and institutional finance included.
The NCQG debates were difficult: quantifying the goal and securing donor alignment. “There was a lot of horse-trading. Those dynamics felt particularly stark in the adaptation discussions,” said Dr. Patel. The momentum on fossil fuel phase-out was strong, but developing countries were pressured to back it in exchange for adaptation finance. They resisted, arguing that developed countries’ obligations must stand independent of political bargaining.
Roadmaps, Not Pledges, Steal the Show
Yet COP30 delivered on other important aspects. President Lula used the Leaders Summit to call for roadmaps to transition away from fossil fuels, a move that quickly became the summit’s rallying cry. More than 80 countries, along with businesses and civil society groups, aligned behind it. Twenty-four countries joined Colombia’s Belém plan. Although the proposal did not make it into the final negotiated text, momentum built rapidly. “It took 28 COPs for the outcome text even to mention ‘fossil fuels.’ Two years later we are talking about roadmaps. In COP time, that is quick,” said Dr. Patel.
She emphasized that what happens around COP is often more transformative than what appears in formal text. COPs should not be judged solely on whether they “land a big win”.
It is important to take a long-term view on COPs rather than expecting immediate breakthroughs. Brazil has committed to developing two roadmaps outside the UNFCCC process: one on deforestation and one on fossil fuel transition, connected to Colombia’s initiative. COP31 will feature an unusual structure: Turkey will hold the presidency, while Australia will lead negotiations, which is an unprecedented split with unclear implications. COP32 in 2027 will be hosted by Ethiopia.
The call for roadmaps comes as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) remain insufficient to limit warming to 1.5°C. Roadmaps focus on the real economy: business, civil society, and subnational governments able to move faster than national governments. California and Quebec use carbon markets to generate climate revenues. Querétaro State in Mexico uses a polluter-pays tax for biodiversity. Kerala in India applies a 1% flood-cess for community flood defense. “If they want to do it, they will do it,” said Dr. Patel. In climate action, top-down and bottom-up approaches must coexist.
The Real Economy and Civil Society Drive Climate Action
The UNFCCC’s legal obligations remain important: developed countries must support those who did not cause the climate crisis. But geopolitics and real-economy dynamics often move faster than treaty processes. Roadmaps matter because they leverage real-economy forces—and those forces can pressure treaty commitments. “If 80% of implementation happens at the city or state level, and those governments cannot access international climate finance directly, there will always be a gap that must be complemented by global financing,” said Dr. Patel.
Civil society energy was unusually strong at COP30. Protest was visible and creatively organized. “There was a militarized presence, but still—to see Indigenous activists and youth activists was striking,” said Dr. Patel. Such mobilization had been nearly absent in Egypt, Dubai, and Azerbaijan. She noted that this “global mutirão,” or collective effort, brought business, civil society, and government into the same space.
However, negotiations were shaped by closed-door shuttle diplomacy. Many plenaries were inaccessible to observers; bilateral and small-group deals dominated. At first this appeared efficient, but it prevented transparent dialogue and limited the ability to scrutinize country positions. This contrasted sharply with Glasgow, where plenaries allowed real-time questioning and insight into national stances.
Another expectation was progress on adaptation. Countries did adopt new indicators, but in a rushed, aggregated way not tied to finance. Even with high-quality indicators, financing rarely follows automatically. Baselines are also problematic: tripling adaptation finance means little if the starting point is already insufficient. The gap between indicators and money remains wide.