COP30 branded ‘COP of Talk’ as CSE raises alarm over weak outcomes and rising tensions
Indian-Based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has criticised COP30 — expected to be the “COP of Truth” — describing it instead as a “COP of Talk”, filled with promises but delivering very little beyond one unclear mechanism. CSE says that while the agreement on a new just transition mechanism is a victory for developing countries and civil society, the progress on adaptation finance remains weak and vague. Programme manager for Climate Change at CSE, Avantika Goswami, said the united front of the G77 and China was strong throughout the negotiations. But she explained that the behaviour of some developed countries — including attempts to divide developing blocs and blaming large developing countries as “blockers” — exposed a growing crisis in how COPs operate. “It is unclear who it serves and if it remains fit for purpose,” Goswami said. The Brazilian COP30 Presidency announced the final Belem Political Package on November 22. Its key decisions include a new international cooperation mechanism for just transition, language on tripling adaptation finance by 2035 and a work programme to examine climate finance flows under Article 9 of the Paris Agreement. But one major gap remains: no direct reference to fossil fuels. Instead, Brazil pushed separate, non-COP roadmaps covering fossil fuel transition and deforestation. CSE says this silence is worrying. They argue that the Paris Agreement’s shift from strict targets to voluntary pledges is now showing serious problems — mainly because developed countries continue expanding fossil fuel production while putting pressure on the Global South. CSE said in a statement that blaming developing countries for poor climate ambition is misleading, especially when “China is leading with the world’s largest clean technology programme, and India is adding large amounts of renewable energy as well.” The statement added that the “highly polarised and divisive atmosphere” is making cooperation harder, while rich countries continue promoting weak climate pledges. One of the few clear achievements of COP30 is a decision under the UAE Just Transition Work Programme to create a mechanism for international cooperation, technical support, and capacity building. Programme officer at CSE, Rudrath Avinashi, said this is an important step. “However, with timelines still uncertain, technical functions undefined, and no guaranteed finance for implementation, concerns remain that the mechanism could be empty and meaningless,” he said. Parties agreed on a set of indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation, but CSE warns that the deal is weak because developing countries still lack financial support to implement the indicators. Key changes were introduced late, leaving little room for review. As a result, many countries believe the package is not strong enough and will need deeper discussions at future sessions. Deputy programme manager at CSE, Trishant Dev, said, “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.” Adaptation finance — expected to be tripled — was also weakened. The new deadline is now 2035, but there is no clear baseline and no clarity on which countries will pay. Developing countries arrived at COP30 hoping to fix the failure on climate finance from COP29. But their efforts to get a formal agenda item on Article 9.1 were blocked. Instead, they were given a watered-down two-year programme on the broader Article 9. CSE says accountability suffered again. Developed countries resisted key transparency tools and avoided changes that would strengthen the Standing Committee on Finance. Programme officer at CSE, Sehr Raheja, said: “Across tracks, developing countries pushed for stronger accountability, shorter timelines on finance delivery, and a focus on public finance, but saw little convergence.” In the second week, a surprise Roadmap to Transition Away from Fossil Fuels (TAFF) appeared. Supported by some developed and developing countries, it quickly drew attention — overshadowing discussions on adaptation and just transition. However, developing countries argued that a roadmap with no finance provisions and no negotiation process was unacceptable. It was eventually removed from the final COP text. Tensions peaked when Colombia protested the weak ambition on the fossil fuel phaseout. Brazil later announced a separate, non-negotiated roadmap process linked to a Colombia-led conference in April 2026. Goswami said this revealed deeper problems in the talks: “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.” Unilateral trade measures such as the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) were also heavily discussed. Countries like India warned that these policies are not about climate ambition, but about protecting industries in the Global North. The issue will now feature in COP dialogues over the next three years, a significant step forward. Goswami indicated that, “while the dialogues on UTM could be mere talk shops, it is significant to see the trade and climate issue being elevated in the COP process… and it is not going away anytime soon.”