By Avilash Roul
Has the 30th edition of UN climate summit, COP30, delivered as projected at the beginning of the summit? Certainly, the trust in the Paris Agreement has been maintained and partially achieved. Faith in multilateralism has been sustained despite the absence of the second-largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), the US.
Also Read
However, the division among the coalition member groups within COP is as stark as ever in 30 years of climate negotiations. But then again, there is neither a financial commitment from developed member countries nor a roadmap for phasing out of fossil fuels, culprits of climate change. As a result, 194 parties (minus the US) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have collectively left the planet under increasing temperatures by slowing down climate actions. Continuing the faith in the multilateral climate cooperation and maintaining the stature of Brazilian leadership, the outcome of the climate summit is a mixed one, with high disappointment but low ambitions.
One can easily find out that the climate change mitigation, enshrined as the main objective of the UNFCCC in Article 2, has gradually and deliberately been put on the back burner. Stabilisation of GHG concentrations within a timeframe shall be the primary responsibility of the COPs. More than 80 members of the COP backed Brazil’s proposal for a formal roadmap to phase out fossil fuels. However, offensive resistance from major oil-producing countries and their political allies has successfully kept a roadmap away from fossil fuels in the final agreement. Unusually, the final agreement has no direct mention of fossil fuels.
By side-stepping the climate mitigation in COPs, both developed and developing countries are benefiting. Developing countries, especially emerging economies like India and China, are opposed to any binding obligation in emission reduction. Likewise, developed countries are at ease as long as there are no legally binding conditions for extending climate finances to developing countries for mitigating emissions. Similarly, countries agreed voluntarily to set up a two-year programme to enable developing countries to mobilise at least $1.3 trillion yearly till 2035.
A changing landscape in climate negotiations is emerging where the emerging economies will be substituting traditional leadership. Linking trade to climate change came as no surprise at COP30. Participants and followers of the COPs are aware of the diversion tactics, like strategies used to shift focus from core issues like phasing out fossil fuels, financial obligations and delaying actions. Trade measures such as carbon adjustments – a tariff imposed on trade in goods that accounts for GHG emissions during their production were deliberately included during all negotiations. However, India and China vehemently opposed such measures as discriminatory.
While COP30 calls for aligning trade with climate action, it also stresses the concerns of developing countries to avoid unilateral manipulation of international trade. For the satisfaction of the most vulnerable countries, COP30 has agreed to a vaguely derived ‘tripling’ of financial support from developed countries to the adaptation fund. The increase in financial amount has been touted as the most visible outcome of the Belem COP. Developing countries require annually $365 billion for adaptation costs. Surprisingly, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) reveals that adaptation finance flows to developing countries were $26 billion and $28 billion in 2023 and 2022, respectively. Is the tripling adaptation fund enough for preparing communities and other living beings to be resilient to climate catastrophes? From the civil society perspective, the Belem COP has provided a sense of climate justice in terms of establishing a just transition mechanism.
A just transition is broadly defined as the process of transition to low-carbon and environmentally sustainable economies and societies no one should be left behind or pushed behind. While countries will submit their views by March 2026, the mechanism’s aim is to increase international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing as countries transition to sustainability. Most remarkably, COP30 has witnessed the historical operationalisation of the loss and damage fund, established in COP27. Will the Fund respond rapidly and sufficiently where it is required most in the frontlines of climate emergencies? Frontline climate activists are sceptical. While COP30 acknowledged that more climate action and finance are urgently needed, it took backward steps to provide directions on how to get there.
The writer is an international advisor on climate change risks and transboundary rivers.
