COP30 outcome: What it means and what’s next

This piece was written by Patricia Fuller, Anne Hammill, Ieva Baršauskaitė, Emilie Beauchamp, Aia Brnic, Angie Dazé, Ivetta Gerasimchuk, Natalie Jones, Jeffrey Qi, Valentina Romoli and Lynn Wagner and was originally published on the IISD website.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Belém wrapped up on Saturday with decisions that reflect both a shared desire for global action and increasingly polarized interests.

This year’s conference—which the Presidency had framed as the “implementation COP”—was meant to focus less on what the world must do and more on how to make it all happen. With major commitments already on the table to tackle global warming and ensure we can adapt to the worsening impacts of climate change, negotiators were expected to pin down tools, indicators, and processes to turn aspirations into action. 

But deep divisions on finance, trade measures, mitigation pathways, and other areas stalled progress on these decisions until the very last moment. The outcome of the conference left many disappointed, including more than 80 countries that pushed for a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels in the final deal. Those who supported a stronger outcome on climate finance for developing countries were equally discouraged.

Still, there were some positive outcomes and a clear desire to make progress in the months and years ahead, including through collaboration outside of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process.

“While deep divisions were on display in Belém, we also saw strong ambition from countries to continue working together on the transition away from fossil fuels. This work will go beyond COP 30.”

Patricia Fuller, President and CEO

Climate adaptation also took up much of the spotlight at the conference, which in itself is positive.

“The Mutirão decision effectively keeps adaptation finance on the negotiating table and signals political will to support those countries impacted most by climate change,” says Anne Hammill, associate vice president, Resilience at IISD. “Political battles compromised what could have been stronger outcomes on the technical work of implementation, but these efforts will continue through National Adaptations Plans and other processes.”

Event: COP30 debrief: lessons from Belém and the road ahead for adaptation

Join us on 9 December as we unpack COP30’s key adaptation debates and decisions with a panel of experts: what advanced, what stalled, and what priorities lie ahead.

More info and register

A New Climate Finance Work Programme

Although not on the official agenda, climate finance was in the spotlight at COP30, with discussions focused on how countries would deliver the promise of the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance that was adopted in Baku last year, including through scaling up the provision of public finance under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. 

The Mutirão decision—a high-level political text proposed by the COP Presidency and adopted by parties—recognizes the urgency of this issue by establishing a 2-year work programme on climate finance to ensure that countries continue to discuss the implementation of the Baku commitment.

The new program could provide a platform for political follow-up on the Baku to Belém Roadmap to scale up climate finance from both public and private sources for developing countries to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035—finance essential for their climate action in the next decade.

It also provides a space for developing countries to continue pushing for the provision of public finance from developed countries to meet the core USD 300 billion mobilization goal set by the Baku decision.

Adaptation Finance to Triple, Delivery Delayed

The Mutirão decision also called for the tripling of adaptation finance by 2035. This new goal is a welcome continuation beyond the sunset of the previous goal agreed at COP26 in Glasgow. It sends an important political signal on the need to address the widening adaptation finance gap and helps maintain pressure on developed countries to scale up their support. 

However, it does not match the level of ambition that developing countries and civil society had consistently pushed for in Belém. For one, it has been weakened from the originally proposed 2030 target and does not mention a specific baseline. As climate impacts worsen, a 2035 target does not meet the growing adaptation finance needs of developing countries and will delay urgently needed action to protect their communities, economies, and ecosystems.

Contested Adaptation Indicators

One of this COP’s core priorities was agreeing on a set of indicators for the global goal on adaptation—a technical process that became tightly intertwined with high-level negotiations on adaptation finance under the Mutirão decision. Unfortunately, COP30 failed to deliver a coherent outcome on indicators for the global goal on adaptation. 

The adopted list of 59 indicators includes key elements to assess global adaptation progress, including indicators for tracking means of implementation (finance, technology transfer, and capacity building), one indicator on gender-responsive adaptation policies, and suggestions for disaggregation (e.g., by gender, age, geography, and ecosystem). However, last-minute changes to the list of indicators that was carefully designed by a group of experts over the last 2 years have compromised their credibility and will make them more difficult to operationalize.

Amid confusion and objections to the text in the closing plenary, the next steps for technical work on the indicators remain vague, with hints that the set will see further revisions until 2027. As countries work to strengthen their national monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems for adaptation, the indicators should have provided them with a way forward. Unfortunately, the adopted indicators fall short of guiding them in this process, which will inform the development of their second Biennial Transparency Reports. As a result, we could potentially miss a window to provide evidence and visibility for adaptation as part of the second global stocktake. 

After 2 years of negotiations, the decision on the national adaptation plan (NAP) assessment was finally adopted. The outcome of the NAP assessment recognized the progress of developing countries’ adaptation planning and implementation, while pointing out the challenges they face in accessing the necessary resources and climate information needed to carry out their NAP processes and implement adaptation actions. 

It also highlighted the importance of integrating Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge and a gender-responsive approach in the NAP process, as well as the potential of nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation. However, the decision does not provide any meaningful guidance on how to scale up support for developing countries’ NAP processes, nor does it include key elements, such as explicit mention of adaptation mainstreaming and synergies and policy coherence with the national biodiversity strategy and action plan process. 

Fossil Fuel Roadmap Pushed Out

Amid all the discussions in Belém, one question echoed through the conference halls: where is the space to build on commitments to move away from fossil fuels, phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and triple renewables—and how do we close the ambition gap in nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which is still far from delivering on this promise? 

By the end of the week, 88 countries had thrown their support behind developing a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, pushing to anchor the idea in the Mutirão decision so work can advance over the coming year. However, the final text did not reflect these calls, containing no language on a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

Draft language on fossil fuel subsidy reform did not make it into the Mutirão decision either. The final text launched the Belém Mission to 1.5 with COP30 and 31 presidencies tasked with delivering a report by COP31 on enabling ambition and the implementation of NDCs and NAPs. However, there is no clear hook for the mission to link back into the process. The decision also launched the Global Implementation Accelerator, meant to accelerate implementation to keep 1.5°C in reach and support countries in implementing their NDCs and NAPs. These two processes, if well designed and delivered, could still offer steps toward a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

In addition, agreement was reached in the final decision to develop a just transition mechanism, aiming to enhance international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity building, and knowledge sharing, which had been a key ask from civil society groups. The establishment of this mechanism represents a key step forward in making the Just Transition Work Programme more actionable.

Trade Talks Continue

Trade emerged as one of the hottest issues at these climate talks, surfacing in presidency consultations and spilling into other negotiation areas. The flashpoint was the so-called unilateral trade measures, which include border carbon adjustments and deforestation-related import regulations. Some parties view these measures as disadvantaging developing economies and creating imbalances in decarbonizing the global economy. In the end, the political consensus on this sticking point was to hold three dialogues at the subsidiary bodies on enhancing international cooperation in this area. The results of those exchanges will be reported further at a high-level event in 2028.

Gender Action Plan Agreed

The Belém talks successfully concluded the negotiations on the much-anticipated Gender Action Plan. The result includes many essential elements, including the use of disaggregated data and gender analysis for decision making and collaboration among relevant actors about gender and climate change to advance gender-responsive climate action. 

The call to integrate gender into national climate policies and plans, as well as into reporting and communications under the UNFCCC, will help to ensure accountability for implementing these commitments across the different streams of climate action.

The recognition that multidimensional factors—such as race, disability, and age—shape people’s experiences with climate change and their ability to engage in climate action is fundamental for equity. Strengthening the evidence base on this will be essential as countries implement the Gender Action Plan to deliver gender-responsive climate action over the next decade.

What’s Next?

COP31 will convene in Türkiye, with Australia serving as the “President of Negotiations.”  In an innovative decision, delegates agreed to a compromise after many months of stalemate between the two potential hosts. Antalya will be the host city for COP31, with Türkiye signing the host-country agreement with the UNFCCC, organizing the World Leaders Summit, and serving as the COP31 President-Designate. Türkiye will also appoint the High-Level Champion and the Youth Champion and lead the Action Agenda. However, Australia will nominate a representative to preside over the negotiations and will host a pre-COP in the Pacific.

So when does the work begin?

Brazil wants to keep the momentum going and promised to deliver roadmaps for deforestation and a just transition away from fossil fuels in the coming year. President Lula brought the fossil fuel transition roadmap to Johannesburg this weekend, where the leaders of Brazil, Australia, and Türkiye met with their counterparts from other major economies for the G20 summit and adopted a declaration on the climate crisis and other global challenges, despite the United States’ objection and boycott. 

In the face of the United States’ decision to step back from a leadership role, augmented roles for other leaders will be even more important. The innovative arrangement for COP31 leadership has pledged to promote solidarity between developing and developed countries and to bring attention to the Pacific Island states. COP32, in Ethiopia, will be the first climate COP under the leadership of a least developed country.  

In addition to these leaders for the global process, all eyes should also turn to the domestic implementation of NDCs—as well as the countries that have yet to submit an NDC. Given the large number of countries in support of transitioning away from fossil fuels at this COP, we can only hope that these countries speed up their domestic implementation of the transition.