Looking back on COP30: the overall sentiment is positive, but progress is much too slow – 6 QUESTIONS

In the absence of the United States, the Brazil Climate Summit – otherwise known as COP30 – has proved that multilateralism and the Paris Climate Agreement are still effective. Interesting results were obtained, but the climate-related efforts are still too limited to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s look back by asking six key questions.
 

1. What is the overall sentiment after COP30?
2. What were the main results?
3. What were the weaknesses?
4. The indigenous peoples enjoyed great visibility. Do they get more say in the decision-making process?
5. Does the format – striving to reach a consensus with nearly 200 countries – still work?
6. What part did Belgium play?
    

1. What is the overall sentiment after COP30?

The overall sentiment is undoubtedly positive. Firstly, the host country Brazil wanted to demonstrate that multilateralism (looking for solutions to global challenges through international dialogue, ed.) and the Paris Agreement are still effective. And it has succeeded in doing so.

No matter how challenging the discussions were, all the countries – apart from the United States, that have completely withdrawn from the debate – kept working together to develop a worldwide climate policy based on the Paris Climate Agreement, in collaboration with all the stakeholders – civil society, the private sector, indigenous peoples, … – and supported by scientific insights.

The issue remains that the commitments are being carried out far too slowly. Greenhouse gas emissions keep increasing. However, in the current context – since the United States are adamant to return to oil and gas, and multilateralism and climate needs have been sidelined – COP30 turned out to be a real boost. If, for example, the EU had rejected the final statement, multilateralism would have been exposed to a significant risk, and we would be in even worse shape.

2. What were the main results?

These are the four results that garnered the greatest attention.

1. The countries had to submit their nationally determined contributions (or NDCs). While many of them – including the EU – were late, some have not shown any initiative. India, for example, has still – on this date of 13 January 2026 – not submitted a revised plan. All things considered, we have reached roughly 2.2 to 2.5°C of warming, far exceeding the 1.5°C objective.
   
   The EU is practically the only party that wants to re-examine the NDCs’ level of ambition at the COP each year. That would allow to exert enough pressure on all the countries so that they would formulate objectives with the highest level of ambition and keep the 1.5°C objective within reach.
   
   Countries such as the Arab Group and India prefer to strictly adhere to the Paris Agreement and to only revise the national plans every 5 years. They want this to remain a strictly national competence without this matter attracting the attention of the entire world at a COP.
   
   At COP30, Brazil positioned itself between those two viewpoints and this position ended up in the final declaration. The host country also feels that a 5-year cycle will suffice. But they do want countries to commit to working together intensely in the meantime so that they would be able to surmount the obstacles that prevent them from reaching a high level of ambition. Therefore, there must be a permanent dialogue on how we can achieve better results. During those discussions, we can learn from each other’s experiences.

2. COP30 did not lead to a broadly supported roadmap to phase out fossil fuels. That was an absolute no-go for the Arab Group and the BRICS countries without Russia. Colombia did, however, take the initiative to work out a roadmap in collaboration with some 80 countries individually. A first summit centred on that topic will take place in Colombia in April 2026. The Benelux countries have joined this initiative.
   
   The initiative gained immense mobilising power and was widely picked up by civil society. Although it was not included in the official final statement, it still constitutes a concrete commitment. In collaboration with the presidency of the next COP, the Brazilian presidency will have an informal look at the different ways of following up on this roadmap.
    
3. Last year, the wealthy countries promised to provide 300 million dollars’ worth of climate funding by 2035. The lack of additional adaptation funding certainly left the least developed countries and the African countries feeling highly frustrated. 
   
   Finally, at COP30, it was agreed that adaptation funding would triple but would still remain a part of the unchanged amount of 300 million dollars.
    
4. Another key topic was the so-called industrial competitiveness. For instance, the EU wants to charge a carbon tax on commodities imported from outside the EU: the so-called CBAM or Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. This mechanism must compensate for the CO₂ emission of these commodities, including iron, fertilizer, and cement. The lower the emissions, the lower the tax. In doing so, the EU wants to prevent European companies that go to great lengths to address climate needs, from competing with cheap imports from companies that make little to no effort.
   
   But the emerging countries and the Arab Group do not see eye to eye on this matter. “We are at a different stage of development and our climate-related efforts cannot be held to the same standard as those of the industrialised countries.” They also feel that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) should address this issue.
   
   Finally, it was decided that a COP must provide space for trade and climate discussions.

Apart from these issues that sparked the most discussions in political circles and the press, many other agenda items were also covered, including the following talking points:

1. Countries will work together more efficiently to ensure a just transition. During that process, it will be important to exchange experiences on how the countries will bring this to fruition, what mechanisms they use such as the role of the unions and so on. New sectors must be addressed, etc.
    
2. A gender action plan stipulates that greater attention must be paid to gender mainstreaming in practically every dimension.
    
3. The Brazilian presidency has worked hard on the action agenda. To that effect, it has grouped roughly 100 action items into 6 clusters. These ‘side issues’ include housing, energy and health, and they are especially addressed by stakeholders outside of the strict climate process. Clustering will allow a follow-up of these issues within the climate process as well. This is a matter of great importance because they reflect the actions of other actors.
    
4. The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) was officially inaugurated. Strictly speaking, the TFFF was not a part of the negotiations, but protecting the tropical forests is a significant outcome that helps protect tropical forests. 20% must flow to indigenous peoples.
   
   The World Bank will co-manage the TFFF. Some countries have already made funding commitments. Belgium promised continued efforts to safeguard Congolese forests.

3. What were the weaknesses?

As previously stated, the Brazilian presidency primarily wanted to demonstrate that multilateralism is still effective. It also aimed to create a collaborative system where everyone learns from each other, with an action agenda, national climate plans, …

That choice was also its weakness: no breakthrough was made on the phasing out of fossil fuels, nor was there a credible plan to bridge the gap to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Because then, by 2030, we would have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50%! Now we are headed for a 10% reduction by 2035. Little progress was also made on concrete measures to combat deforestation.

Another weakness was that no progress was made on adaptation indicators, that would allow the adaptation progress to be measured. This is the only way to generate necessary political attention and investments. But the African countries rejected the indicators out of fear that they would be used to call them out on their lack of progress. While they often simply did not have sufficient means to do so.

4. The indigenous peoples enjoyed great visibility. Do they get more say in the decision-making process?

Indigenous peoples can play an important part in tackling climate disruption. The choice of location – in the middle of the Amazon forest – in itself was already a statement: indigenous peoples can have their say. Their presence was undeniable, both in and outside of the buildings.

The Brazilian presidency has worked intensively to include them more. For example, they were given a dedicated platform that strengthened their voice.

5. Does the format – striving to reach a consensus with nearly 200 countries – still work?

Climate policy can only be decided at a multilateral level – with all countries singing from the same sheet. After all, there is no point in continuing down this path with a small group of ambitious countries if the other countries are reluctant to participate. That does make it necessary to set our goals a bit lower, but that way, we can still keep moving forward together.

However, it is still possible – in a wholly complementary fashion – for a limited number of countries to move ahead with certain measures. For example, it is very interesting that some 80 countries will consult with each other to define the outlines of such a roadmap for the phasing out of fossil fuels. What is the best way to achieve the energy transition? What social aspects must be considered? What investments are needed? …

At the same time, they can try to persuade new countries to join their coalition of the willing. The results can then be discussed at COP31 without all the countries necessarily having to agree with them.

6. What part did Belgium play?

As always, our country played a significant role within the EU’s division of tasks. Furthermore, 2 ministers – federal Climate minister, Jean-Luc Crucke, and Walloon minister for Energy and the Air-Climate Plan, Céline Neven – were also present and made an active contribution.  

In collaboration with Brazil, Belgium also facilitated ocean and climate negotiations. With great success! For example, oceans are covered more extensively in the national climate plans, while marine ecosystems are explicitly mentioned in the adaptation section. This is a great feather in the cap of our country that aims to host the BBNJ Secretariat – to protect biodiversity on the high seas!

In the autumn we will provide you with an update during the build-up to COP31 in Antalya (Türkiye, 9-20 November 2026).