Belem Climate COP30: Implement What?
Raghu
THE climate summit COP30 in Belem, Brazil, where the mighty Amazon River drains into the Atlantic Ocean, formally began on 10 November 2025. The summit has been labeled the “implementation COP,” because of a narrative that, whereas so many promises and commitments have been made earlier, it is necessary to focus on implementation and delivery which are widely recognized to be lagging far behind. It is indeed true that current trends in emissions reduction as committed to in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) of each country, and in financial and technological assistance by developed countries to developing nations for de-carbonization and adaptation to climate impacts including building longer-term resilience, are way below commitments made under the Paris Agreement (PA) of 2015. They are also far from enabling the internationally agreed target of restricting global average temperature rise to less than 2 degrees C or, preferably, to 1.5C now accepted as the de facto goal, beyond which lie frightening and possibly irreversible climate impacts.
So implementation is of course important. However, such a narrative may also be reflective of a mood of tired resignation, however temporary, in the face of stubbornly slow progress on the PA goals and an international economic and geo-political crisis affecting the developed countries in particular.
CRISIS OF THE
GLOBAL NORTH
The second term of US President Donald Trump, who again withdrew the US, the world’s second largest emitter, from the Paris Agreement, is proving to be even worse than feared. The US is not merely backing away from the international agreement and its own substantial obligations, but is actively working against it by dismantling US renewable energy, environment and climate regulations and incentives, and pushing a major expansion of oil and other fossil fuels in a crazed “drill baby, drill” drive. In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September this year, Trump called climate change “the greatest con job ever,” and wrongly attacked the mounting scientific evidence, encouraging other right-wing governments and political parties to follow his lead. Ominously, after a rare but long-awaited international agreement on curbing emissions from international maritime shipping, hitherto outside the global climate framework, Trump not only pulled the US out of it, he also threatened sanctions and penal landing fees on any ship arriving on US shores, causing the collapse of the agreement. What is to stop Trump from threatening countries adhering to the Paris Agreement with debilitating tariffs?
Europe is going through weak economic growth, compounded by Trump tariffs, and self-inflicted pain from its costly involvement in the Ukraine war, including an energy crisis prompting a revival of coal-based and nuclear power. The EU has responded to its economic crisis by scaling back its emissions reduction pledges, and alongwith the UK, has reduced their financial assistance to developing countries. Against this background, there appears to be little talk in the lead-up to and at COP30, at least so far, of the deep emission cuts urgently required.
Against this background, it would be unfortunate if the thrust of negotiations at COP30 merely reiterates earlier decisions and mechanically looks at what has been or not been done, but does not arrive at decisions on urgent actions and corresponding responsibilities required to drastically cut emissions and save the world, particularly vulnerable populations, from horrendous disasters already being seen.
Early signs from Belem, currently witnessing heavy rainfall, serious flooding and water-logging of accommodations and even Conference venues, appear to mirror this somewhat gloomy atmosphere. Brazilian President Lula addressed the opening session with very few heads of government present, a clear sign of enthusiasm and low expectations. His proposal for a new Fund to reduce deforestation received a cool reception, with the UK going back on its earlier commitment of funds for this, and Germany too going silent on the issue. A dangerously low-key start to COP30.
WAY BEHIND
TARGET
The Paris Agreement committed all countries to an iterative process of commitments, review against the 2C or preferably 1.5C goal, and fresh commitments as necessary. However, this has not been followed, even in the face of severe climate impacts and mounting evidence of accelerating global heating, climate change and lag in emissions reduction.
The UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) “Emissions Gap Report” or EGR, released on the eve of COP30 as per usual practice, makes grim reading. Global temperatures in the past 3 years have set records, and have exceeded 1.5C in the past two, a sign of things to come going by recent decadal averages, even though global average temperatures are measured over 10 years. Atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) levels rose 2.3 percent in 2024 compared to 1.6 percent the previous year, and four times the growth rate over the previous decade.
Even at current levels, forest fires, droughts, floods, heat waves, melting glaciers and polar ice, increasing and more severe cyclones, rising sea levels, have all reached dangerous levels. Loss of glacier ice and of Arctic ice have reached record levels, ocean acidification has risen sharply, as have sea levels. Danger looms if tipping points are breached, beyond which climate changes could be severe and abrupt.
Even with full implementation of all NDCs for 2030, there is an emissions gap of 12 Gigatons (12 million tons) of CO2 equivalent (normalizing all GHGs to the equivalent global warming effect of CO2) for achieving the 2 deg C target and 20 Gt CO2-eq for the 1.5C target. At current emission reduction levels, global average temperatures are likely to reach 2.3-2.5C. Global emissions must reduce by 42 percent by 2035 compared with 2019 levels in order to achieve the 2C target, while emissions must fall by 57 percent for the 1.5C target.
The world is very far from that. Only one-third of countries had submitted the obligatory more ambitious revised NDCs for 2035 by September and just over half by the time COP30 began. At the time of writing, India had failed to table its NDC 3.0. China and the EU had not formally submitted them although both had announced revised but low targets. The EU targets of 55 per cent cut by 2030 from 1990 levels, going up to 90 per cent by 2040 albeit with a 10 per cent leeway for carbon trading are tepid, and much less than, for example the UK which has committed to 81 per cent reduction by 2035 from 1990 levels. China has made a positive and significant shift to absolute emissions reduction from emission intensity targets, setting an example for India, but its target of 7-10 percent reduction by 2035, has been assessed as not very different from current trends. The revised NDCs submitted so far, defying expectations, do not appear to have closed this emissions gap much. Yet there seems little sense of anxiety or urgency at Belem, except among vulnerable small island nations and least developed countries (LDCs), or even pressure from influential developing countries. Will the coming fortnight see that change?
ADAPTATION
AND FINANCE
If mitigation, or emissions reduction, is not top of the agenda, it seems Adaptation and Finance are. In the opinion of this writer, both are uphill battles especially the latter.
Most developing countries and their groupings, notably the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), LDCs, AOSIS (island states) and BASIC, are pushing for more action and funding for Adaptation which includes building resilience against climate impacts. The Global Goal on Adaptation decided on at COP29 is yet to be properly defined, especially its indicators which could be used to decide on finance flows. There is a special dilemma here. Commitments on Emissions reduction or Mitigation by countries require reporting and monitoring internationally since these have global effect and implications. Climate impacts and Adaptation actions by countries, although related to global climate change processes, are national-level actions with little or no global effects. The extant emissions control architecture does not provide for this nor, if funding is provided for this purpose, for international supervision or monitoring, leaving yet another thorny issue to be sorted out.
Financing is getting increasingly complicated and shows clear signs of getting more so under pressure. Financial assistance from developed to developing countries has always been part of the architecture of climate agreements. It started off as encompassing Mitigation and Adaptation, although proportions of either were not defined, and are up for negotiation at COP30. Current targets are $300 billion annually for both, with an aspirational goal of reaching $1.3 trillion, which is currently being pressed. Meanwhile, a separate fund for Loss & Damage was agreed, details still being worked out.
Problem is that while separate buckets are envisaged for Mitigation, Adaptation and Loss & Damage, the developed country coffers from which these are to come are the same! Given the character of global capitalism, developed countries have tried to dodge their “commitments” by cutting back on public finances and grants in preference to loans including from multilateral institutions and private investments; demanding stringent accounting and monitoring, and strict definitions of climate financing as different from development assistance; and cutting back on development funding, with all OECD countries announcing severe cuts in ODA. Trump’s recent closing down of USAID, its programmes and funds, has exacerbated the issue. Developed countries have played the finance issue off against their own emissions reduction, preferring to commit on the former and later reneging or redefining as compared to more expensive and painful emissions cuts.
India made its first statement at Belem yesterday, not on its own behalf but on behalf of BASIC and LMDC, merely flagging developing countries’ demands on all the issues up for discussion, such as Adaptation, Finance, Technology Transfer but surprisingly with no mention of deeper emission cuts by developed countries, which is the main and underlying issue.
Delegates at Belem must decide on priorities.
