What happened at COP 30 in Belem: Global climate meet registers small win on just transition, but huge legitimacy crisis for the Paris process
“In a world battered by trade wars, declining development assistance and international cooperation, military conflicts, climate impacts, and fractured multilateralism, the COP process did not instill confidence in good faith climate cooperation; instead, it rehashed tired and cynical patterns of obstructionism
and shifting of burdens on to the poor”: CSE
Belem, Brazil, November 24, 2025: “It was billed as the ‘COP of Truth’. But it ended up becoming another ‘COP of Talk’ -- mouthing dialogues, promising roadmaps and delivering little of substance beyond one unclear mechanism,” says the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) team which witnessed and reported on the proceedings on the site at the UNFCCC’s 30th Conference of Parties in Belem.
The Brazilian COP 30 Presidency gaveled the final Belem Political Package on November 22. Key outcomes include a new mechanism on international cooperation for just transition; language on tripling adaptation finance by 2035; and a work programme to scrutinise finance flows under Article 9 of the Paris Agreement.
Notably absent is any reference to fossil fuels, addressed instead through two parallel roadmaps by Brazil on transitioning away from these fuels; and on deforestation outside the formal COP process.
“While the just transition mechanism is a win for developing countries and civil society which have championed it, the adaptation finance outcome is vague in comparison,” points out Avantika Goswami, programme manager, Climate Change, CSE.
“The collective strength of the G77 and China bloc was evident and kept its priorities in focus. However, the disruptive tactics deployed by developed countries, including scapegoating of large developing countries as ‘blockers’ of ambition and attempts to divide-and-rule the developing blocs, exposed a major crisis of legitimacy for the COP process. It is unclear who it serves and if it remains fit for purpose,” Goswami adds.
The Paris Agreement had shifted the focus from top-down target setting differentiated by development status (as mandated by Kyoto Protocol) to voluntary pledges and erosion of differentiation. Says Goswami: “The pitfalls of this move are now becoming evident, with developed countries escaping scrutiny for ongoing fossil fuel production and use, while pinning the blame on the growing economies of the Global South.”
The false narrative of developing countries blocking ambition is jarring at a time when countries like China are leading with the world’s largest clean technology programme, and India is adding large amounts of renewable energy as well. This highly polarised and divisive atmosphere does not build for consensus or cooperation, which is so desperately needed in our fast-warming world. Rather than focusing on enabling the implementation of existing Nationally Determined Contributions through financial commitments owed by the developed world, the Global North continued to attempt to posture as climate leaders whilst themselves fielding inadequate NDCs. It is clear that the collective strength of the Northern governments and their media continue to prevail in the negotiations.
Just transition: A rare win, unclear future
A key outcome of the UAE Just Transition Work Programme is the decision to develop a new mechanism aimed at strengthening international cooperation, technical assistance, knowledge-sharing, and capacity-building for just transition pathways.
“The adoption marks an important win for developing countries, which have demanded a coordinated approach that binds fragmented efforts on just transition. However, with timelines still uncertain, technical functions undefined, and no guaranteed finance for implementation, concerns remain that the mechanism could be empty and meaningless,” says Rudrath Avinashi, programme officer, Climate Change, CSE.
Adaptation: Indicators adopted, support missing
On the Global Goal on Adaptation, the list of adaptation indicators was adopted, but the decision is overshadowed by significant concerns. Parties warned that the package remains weak on the means of implementation required to make these indicators meaningful. Key changes were also introduced late, leaving little time for scrutiny or negotiation. While the framework advances on paper, it risks falling short of delivering real, measurable support. Parties indicated that the matter would be revisited at Bonn and future sessions.
“The indicators may be adopted, but without means of implementation for developing countries, the Global Goal on Adaptation sets expectations without the means to meet them,” says Trishant Dev, deputy programme manager, Climate Change, CSE.
The much anticipated “tripling” of adaptation finance was also watered down: pushed to 2035, with no clarity on who pays or from what baseline.
Finance: Responsibility dies
Developing countries arrived in Belem determined to fix COP 29’s finance failure and demand real scrutiny of public finance from rich nations. Their push to secure a formal agenda item on Article 9.1 was blocked. Instead, countries were handed a watered-down two-year work programme on the broader Article 9, with a footnote that neatly disconnects it from the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance adopted at COP 29.
Accountability took another hit. Key transparency provisions under Article 9.5 were stripped out, with developed countries blocking NCQG-linked demands and resisting changes to the Standing Committee on Finance mandate.
“Across tracks, developing countries pushed for stronger accountability, shorter timelines on finance delivery, and a focus on public finance, but saw little convergence. The mistrust from the Baku finance outcome loomed large at COP 30 despite the absence of a headline finance agenda”, says Sehr Raheja, programme officer, Climate Change at CSE.
Yet, the work programme offers one of the few concrete spaces left to challenge wealthy countries on climate finance in the coming years — including on the scale and transparency of public finance flows.
Mitigation and fossil fuels: A tactical weaponisation
With no formal agenda item on fossil fuels, a surprise Roadmap to Transition Away from Fossil Fuels (TAFF) surfaced in week two, supported by various developed and developing Parties. It quickly dominated the COP narrative, sidelining formal negotiations on adaptation and just transition. Media narratives -- fed by the EU and allies -- cast Saudi Arabia, the LMDC bloc and other large developing countries as blockers. However, most developing countries maintained that a non-negotiated Roadmap without finance provisions was unacceptable, and it was ultimately omitted from the final text.
Tensions peaked when Colombia objected in the closing plenary to the lack of ambition on fossil fuel phaseout. The Brazil Presidency’s announcement of a parallel, non-negotiated Roadmap process linked to Colombia’s April 2026 conference became the middle-ground outcome. “It was known in the corridors that EU and allied countries held adaptation finance hostage to unclear demands for more mitigation ambition, shifting goalposts whenever money and accountability were at stake. TAFF is critical, but its tactical use to sideline formal adaptation and just transition negotiations exposed a bad-faith effort to undermine months of G77 work on these issues”, says Goswami.
Unilateral trade measures: Trade formally enters the climate arena
Unilateral trade measures, such as the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), reverberated throughout with Parties like India warning that they are “not about ambition — they are about giving competitive advantage to industries in the Global North at the cost of development in the Global South”.
The issue did not become a formal agenda item but will now feature in dialogues over the next three years “to consider opportunities, challenges and barriers in relation to enhancing international cooperation related to the role of trade” -- a significant elevation.
“While the dialogues on UTM could be mere talk shops, it is significant to see the trade and climate issue being elevated in profile in the COP process and involving related agencies such as the WTO and UNCTAD. This is the product of tireless efforts from developing countries over the past year to bring attention to this issue, and it is not going away anytime soon”, says Goswami.
Share this article