After COP30, is it time for reform?

As COP30 came to a close in Belém, the energy in the corridors of the Amazon Convention Center felt noticeably different from the start of the summit. The humid air, the afternoon downpours, and the rhythmic pulse of the rainforest were still there—but the sense of forward motion was not. Halfway through the so-called “decade of action,” and ten years after the Paris Agreement promised a new era of global cooperation, COP30 left many wondering whether the current system can still deliver what the world needs.

According to the International Energy Agency’s 2025 World Energy Outlook, global emissions are still rising, and we are heading toward 2.5–2.8°C of warming by the end of the century. The science is stark, and the window for preventing the worst impacts is rapidly closing. But despite this urgency, the machinery of the COP process once again struggled to translate aspiration into action.

A summit marked by tension—and a lack of political will

This year’s COP was riddled with disagreements over how quickly the world should transition away from fossil fuels and how to protect nature in the process. A small but powerful group of countries continued to resist recognizing the phasing out of coal, oil, and gas as the core solution to the climate crisis. The result was a summit heavy on symbolism but lighter on substance.

Nearly 200 countries had agreed back in Dubai in 2023 to transition away from fossil fuels. Yet in the two COPs since, not a single roadmap has been approved to actually make that transition happen. Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, and China—major fossil fuel producers and consumers—blocked efforts to outline a global pathway.

As negotiations dragged late into the night and into overtime, the disappointment among high-ambition countries and civil society groups was palpable. They came seeking clarity. They left with only more promises to revisit the discussion later.

A workaround outside the formal negotiations

To avoid a complete breakdown, Brazil announced it would lead an international process outside the UN negotiations to explore roadmaps on phasing out fossil fuels and ending deforestation. The effort will kick off at the first International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels next April in Santa Marta, Colombia. The results will be reported at COP31.

It is encouraging that these conversations will continue—but the fact that they had to happen outside the official system underscores how constrained the COP process has become.

Nature: big expectations, smaller outcomes

The first week of COP30 delivered a major moment with Brazil’s announcement of the Tropical Forests Forever Fund. But the momentum did not carry through to the final text.

While halting deforestation was mentioned in the final COP statement, the much-needed roadmap—supported by 90 countries—was not adopted. The irony was hard to ignore: a “forest COP” held in the heart of the Amazon could not secure a plan to end deforestation.

If not here, then where?

Countries also raised concerns about the impacts of the clean energy transition on nature and local communities, especially related to mining and processing critical minerals. Although proposed language on safeguarding ecosystems did not make it into the final statement, its presence in negotiations showed growing awareness that even solutions must be sustainable.

Trade friction enters the climate arena

Another flashpoint this year was the European Union’s carbon border levy, designed to prevent “carbon leakage” from heavy industries operating outside of Europe. China and other countries pushed back sharply, arguing that climate measures should not become disguised trade barriers. Their concerns made it into the final text, signaling that trade and climate policy are becoming increasingly intertwined—and increasingly contentious.

Adaptation: progress made, but deadlines slipped

Climate adaptation took center stage in Belém, especially for developing nations already living with the harshest climate impacts. These countries called on wealthy nations to triple adaptation finance—from the $40 billion agreed at COP26 to $120 billion by 2030.

After fraught negotiations, the deadline for reaching that target was pushed back to 2035.

There was, however, one significant step forward: delegates adopted 599 indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation, creating the first-ever system to measure worldwide progress on resilience starting in 2026. But even that win came with a caveat—two more years will be needed for technical refinements.

Finance: an ambitious goal with no clear path

Talks continued on the climate finance goal adopted last year in Baku, which calls for scaling public and private finance for developing countries to at least $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, including $300 billion in public finance.

Countries acknowledged the scale of what’s needed. But they did not agree on how to mobilize it.

Instead, they created a two-year work program. More discussion. More delay.

And while the need for aligned government policies and deeper corporate investment across supply chains came up repeatedly, neither the negotiations nor the pavilion conversations offered many concrete strategies to get there.

A system struggling to deliver real-world action

The truth is becoming difficult to ignore: the COP process, reliant on full consensus from nearly 200 countries, is showing its limits. A single country—or a handful—can block progress. And they do.

Some worry that reforming the system now, in an era of rising anti-climate politics, could backfire by giving more power to actors who deny the science altogether. Others argue that without new mechanisms—majority voting, opt-in coalitions, or a way to formally record commitments from willing countries—the world risks being held hostage by the least ambitious among us.

These questions can no longer be avoided.

The “blue zone circus”: time for a new model

Beyond the negotiations, the sprawling setup of country and corporate pavilions also deserves scrutiny. Every year, millions of dollars and massive carbon emissions are spent to host panels featuring brilliant experts. Yet with each speaker limited to a few minutes in crowded, noisy halls, the depth and substance required for real problem-solving rarely materialize.

It’s time to repurpose these spaces into true working hubs—places where experts spend real time designing sector-specific action plans, not racing from pavilion to pavilion to deliver five-minute speeches that few can hear.

A bright spot: a revitalized Climate Action Agenda

One genuinely positive development was the strengthened Climate Action Agenda led by the High-Level Champions and Brazil’s COP Presidency. This track brings together businesses, investors, cities, states, Indigenous communities, and civil society—actors who are not part of the negotiations but are critical to delivering on them.

Organized around six thematic pillars and 30 key objectives, this process aimed to turn the Global Stocktake into action. Groups worked throughout the year and used COP30 to present real plans for implementation.

This approach is promising and more energy and investment should flow toward a rigorous non-state action agenda, especially as the formal negotiations tread water.

Looking ahead

Next year, COP31 will be held in Turkey, with Australia presiding. But this year’s summit in Belém leaves us with a pressing question:

Can the current COP model deliver the rapid, coordinated, ambitious action the world needs—or is it time for a structural transformation?

With the U.S. delegation absent, China focused more on trade policy than climate ambition, and other major emitters unwilling to fill the leadership vacuum, COP30 was missing the political pressure that historically pushes agreements forward.

Reform may be difficult—but without it, we risk locking ourselves into a system that produces declarations instead of decisions, and gestures instead of genuine progress.

The stakes could not be higher. As the climate crisis accelerates and political divides deepen, the world must find new ways to move faster. Whether through reforms within the UN process or parallel coalitions of ambitious countries and non-state actors, the time for incrementalism is over.

If Belém taught us anything, it is that we cannot afford another lost decade.