The clarion call for COP30 was that it should be known as the ‘COP of action’, following many years of well-intentioned negotiation sometimes leading to little by way of concrete action.
For instance, while 168 of 195 parties to the Paris Agreement have submitted their Nationally Determined Contributions, many fewer have submitted their latest 3.0 NDCs.
To earn the accolade of COP of action, there were probably three major issues that needed to be addressed and resolved:
Far more countries would complete and submit their 3.0 NDCs – Nationally Determined Contributions – under the Paris Agreement.
The promises of financial contributions for developing countries would be delivered.
A roadmap would be produced for the ordered phasing out of fossil fuels.
By those measures it is hard to judge COP30 as a success, but by other measures, COP30 has certainly fostered further progress.
Its ‘successes’, some of which are now following the global shift we have already reported towards adaptation, include:
- Tripling Adaptation Finance
One of the biggest successes of COP30 was the agreement to triple the funding for climate adaptation to help vulnerable countries cope with climate impacts. The ‘Global Mutirao’ includes this commitment. More disappointing was the fact that the deadline for achieving the target is now pushed back to 2035.
- Just Transition Mechanism
COP30 established a Just Transition Mechanism, aimed at ensuring the shift to greener economies is fair – protecting workers, communities, indigenous peoples, and women. This has been seen as a major breakthrough by many civil society groups.
- Multilateral Consensus Maintained
Despite deep divisions, the conference was able to deliver a deal among 194 countries, a signal that multinational cooperation is still functioning. The ‘Mutirao’ or ‘collective effort’ framing underscored a spirit of combined mobilisation.
This is no small achievement: the voting system is a somewhat unusual and consensus-oriented one, which is why sometimes an agreement is hard to reach or appears to break down. Although the COP has draft Rules of Procedure, the key voting rule (Rule 42) was never formally agreed. As a result, almost all COP decisions are now adopted by consensus. However, this does not mean unanimity, it means ‘no formal objection’. Since ‘consensus’ is not formally defined under the rules, its interpretation largely falls to the COP President. All of this means that single, or a few, parties can block a decision, and negotiations can become contracted as content is reduced in scope or power until a ‘consensus’ point can be reached. By implication this can result in weaker commitments being adopted.
- New Indicators for Adaptation
COP30 adopted 59 global indicators to track adaptation progress, providing more structure for how adaptation funding and outcomes are to be measured. There is also a two-year work programme to further refine and operationalise the indicators.
- Dialogue on Trade and Climate/Gender Action
The deal established a dialogue on trade-related climate measures which could help align economic and climate goals.
The Gender Action Plan was updated, reinforcing the link between climate action and gender equity.
Roadmaps Outside the UN Process
The COP30 presidency announced two roadmaps to be developed outside of the formal UN negotiations. One is for fossil fuel transition, the other for ending deforestation. This move indicates the difficulty in resolving the issues during the conference period. A conference, hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, is planned for April 2026, focusing on the fossil-fuel transition (both countries called for a concrete fossil-fuel phase-out roadmap at COP30, despite both having significant fossil-fuel industries).
In addition, Brazil launched the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, outside of the UN structure, as a fund to preserve forests.
These are all welcome, and in some cases significant, moves in the right direction although COP30 has been criticised for being weaker than had been hoped.
The following is a summary of the conference’s alleged shortfalls:
- Delayed Adaptation Finance
Whilst the tripling of adaptation finance was a huge plus for the conference, pushing the target to 2035, from earlier and more ambitious dates, is seen by some developing nations as being simply too slow. Details remain vague as to who will provide the money, how it will be mobilised, and how it will be distributed.
- Fossil Fuels in the Final Text
Despite strong pressure from over 80 countries for explicit fossil-fuel phase-out, the final Mutirao decision made no direct mention of fossil fuels. Many saw this as a significant retreat, given the scale of global emissions from fossil-fuels, and the number of countries supporting their ordered phase-out.
- Commitment on Fossil-Fuel Roadmap
Instead of a binding roadmap, COP30 was able to commit to creating voluntary roadmaps outside the UN process for fossil-fuel transition. Critics claim this is more symbolic than substantive, because voluntary roadmaps lack enforcement, and may not lead to any real phase-out. The process for the road-mapping will be led by a smaller coalition and not included in the formal COP negotiation process.
- Low Ambition Regarding Emissions and Mitigation
- There was some disappointment that COP30 did not set stronger emissions-reduction targets or more concrete mechanisms for closing the gap to the 1.5ºC goal. Some observers referred to the text as the ‘lowest common denominator’ – essentially, a weak compromise that avoids confronting the most politically difficult issues. The EU and several other countries expressed their frustration at the lack of science-based ambition in key parts of the deal.
- Justice Package Still Incomplete
- Whilst there is a Just Transition Mechanism, some of the funding and detail around how it will support affected communities remains unclear. Some observers have claimed the broader ‘justice package’ remains unfinished, especially in terms of financial support for a just transition.
- Symbolic Rather Than Structural Change
- Many of the most important promises, such as the fossil-fuel roadmap and the deforestation roadmap, are now outside the official UN track, raising doubts about their strength and accountability and leading some to claim this as a retrograde step, reducing the binding power of COP decisions and shifting critical processes to voluntary coalitions.
Whilst COP30 clearly demonstrates that multilateralism still works, with almost 200 countries agreeing some form of deal even under pressure, it also highlighted the limits of consensus when it comes to politically sensitive issues such as fossil fuels.
The success regarding adaptation funding is important, but the delays and vagueness risk undermining its impact.
The voluntary nature of the fossil-fuel roadmaps means that ordered phase-out depends on political will, not institutional obligation.
The creation of a Just Transition mechanism shows promise, although whether it delivers in practice will depend on follow-through relating both to finance and implementation.
Our expert's final thoughts
"All of these beg the question, ‘did COP30 achieve the accolade of COP of action?’
If pressed, I would have to say that I do not think so. However, the next major climate events, the April 2026 conference for the fossil-fuel roadmap, and COP31, may now carry more weight"
They will be the test of whether voluntary processes build momentum, or whether they lead to diminished ambition and action.
We await April 2026 to find out.
