Authored by Dr Nikolaos Gkotsis-Papaioannou. Nikos is a senior lecturer in International Politics at the University of Surrey and specialises in European foreign policy, human rights law and use of force and armed conflict.
Did COP30 manage to become a turning point in the fight against climate change? Beyond the extensive criticisms and pervasive disappointment, were there any positive prospects? With the United States’ provocative foreign and (some would even say erratic) domestic affairs dominating global attention, matters like the environment went relatively unnoticed over the last months of 2025. The latest Conference of the Parties (COP) in November 2025 – the supreme decision-making body of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – gained media attention mostly due to protests. Although it is seen as the most important international venue for negotiating an agreement to limit dangerous climate breakdown, the “Amazonian COP” of 2025 did not manage to meet its hyped expectations. With disproportionate representation of fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance (one in 25 participants), the summit sustained critiques from previous years that it is “no longer fit for purpose”.
The COP30 summit in Belém (Brazil) was often billed as an “Implementation COP”, which would focus more on implementing existing commitments than making new bold ones – it appears that the opposite transpired. The resulting decision secured important wins, but it omitted some of the big-ticket items many hoped to see and/or promised to deliver. There were significant achievements on climate finance, human rights – inclusion, adaptation and forest protection. Nevertheless, the event was overshadowed by the lack of decisive action on critical issues, including the transition away from fossil fuels and the inadequacy of national climate plans (NDCs). Agreement on long-term plans and further promises dominated the outcomes, leaving a sour aftertaste for those who wanted to see more progress made on previous pledges. Despite the resounding absence of leading emitters such as the United States, COP demonstrated the potential in multilateral efforts to maintain momentum on global matters, despite current geopolitical division. However, the compromises and delays that characterised the summit underscored the limitations of the COP process in addressing the urgency of the ‘climate crisis’. The reliance on consensus among nearly 200 countries often results in incremental progress, but this approach is increasingly misaligned with the need for rapid, coordinated global action.
Fossil fuels, a critical issue for achieving meaningful climate goals, were conspicuously absent from substantive negotiations. The summit’s presidency introduced two voluntary roadmaps, one focused on the transition away from fossil fuels and the other on ending deforestation. However, these fell short of the ambitious commitments that many had anticipated. Similarly, while more than 90 countries endorsed the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, a global funding mechanism to reward tropical forest conservation, and the Belém Call to Action for the Congo Basin Forests was signed to renew commitments to halt deforestation by 2030, the summit failed to deliver a negotiated roadmap to halt and reverse forest loss. The reliance on voluntary initiatives, rather than binding agreements within the UN framework, was a significant disappointment, especially given the symbolic importance of hosting COP30 in the Amazon. Forests remain one of the most effective natural solutions for combatting climate change, but the summit fell short of delivering the structural progress needed to protect them.
One of the more notable achievements of the summit was its focus on the social dimensions of climate action. The European Union led efforts to emphasise gender equality and inclusive climate policies, culminating in the adoption of the Belém Gender Action Plan. This plan prioritises actions to address the disproportionate impact of climate change on women and underscores the importance of involving them in decision-making processes. This renewed attention to the social aspects of climate action was a positive step in an otherwise uneven summit.
Another tangible success of COP30 was the establishment of the Just Transition Mechanism, a platform designed to support countries in moving away from fossil fuel-based economies. The mechanism aims to protect workers, assist communities, and ensure equitable distribution of the economic benefits of clean energy. It was widely welcomed by civil society, trade unions, and developing countries as a practical tool for managing the economic and social challenges of decarbonisation. Amidst the broader shortcomings of the summit, the Just Transition Mechanism stands out as a meaningful and actionable achievement.
Trade also emerged as a central theme at COP30, with heated debates over carbon border measures, particularly the EU’s new levy on high-emissions imports. The summit concluded with an agreement to launch structured dialogues on trade and climate cooperation, reflecting broader geopolitical shifts. The absence of the United States left the EU increasingly isolated, while China and India emphasised the need for trade fairness and flexibility. Meanwhile, Russia and Saudi Arabia adopted a more assertive stance, resisting stronger language on mitigation. These debates highlighted the growing challenge of maintaining global unity in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape.
Heading into COP30, there was significant concern over the inadequacy of national climate plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), under the Paris Agreement. These plans, which are meant to be updated every five years, are critical to limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. However, over 70 countries, including major emitters India and Saudi Arabia, failed to submit updated NDCs. Those that were submitted were largely insufficient, collectively pointing to a global temperature rise of approximately 2.5°C. This shortfall, combined with the lack of concrete commitments on emissions reductions, fossil fuel transitions, and climate finance for vulnerable nations, leaves significant work for the Australian presidency at COP31, which will take place in Turkey next year.
Ultimately, the outcome of the most recent summit reflects the inherent limitations of the process itself. Designed to achieve incremental progress through consensus, the COP struggles to deliver the urgent, transformative action needed to address the climate emergency. While COP30 produced new initiatives on implementation and cooperation, it failed to secure a clear commitment to phasing out fossil fuels, which many viewed as the defining issue of the summit. Belém may be remembered less for its achievements and more as a turning point in the global climate dialogue, raising critical questions about whether the COP framework is equipped to meet the demands of an accelerating climate crisis. As aptly summarised by António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, in his remarks to the General Assembly regarding 2026 priorities, “Peace with justice also means peace with nature. A world in climate chaos cannot be a world at peace. Climate change is a threat multiplier”.
