What to Expect at COP30

Given the tone of the last climate COP and the current geopolitical climate, how hopeful are you that COP 30 will see meaningful progress?

I have to say, it’s a bit of a bleak picture. I spoke yesterday to an experienced negotiator who usually qualifies themselves as a very optimistic person. They always say, “We will rocket over the finish line in the end.” Even they were quite pessimistic about COP30 because the process is in a rough state.

The multilateral diplomatic scene has been more difficult than ever in recent years. We also have a lot of logistical constraints for COP30, with some delegations not sending anyone to Belém and others knowing they’re going to have reduced delegation sizes. That really weighs down the general mood.

We know there are some issues on which we will see progress, but it’s a bit hard to pin down exactly what turn this conference will take.

Compared to previous years, the location of COP30 and conference logistics seem poised to have a much bigger impact on the actual negotiations.

We have read that some smaller European countries aren’t planning on sending anyone. Then again, in the climate negotiations, not all countries negotiate by themselves for themselves. Most countries engage in coalitions, either through their regions or among countries with shared characteristics, like the Alliance of Small Island States. Even if smaller European countries don’t send any delegates, the European Union (EU) as a whole will still be represented. I assume the same thing would be true for other coalitions.

Even so, the logistical barriers of attending COP30 will mostly hurt countries with limited financial resources: least developed countries. If you’re a delegate from a Small Island Developing State that must take six or seven flights to come to Belém, that adds to the cost. We’ve all seen media reports highlighting accommodation prices of a thousand dollars per night. This is not something governments can typically afford. And it’s not just developing countries; a lot of developed countries are tightening their budgets too.

A big issue is finding a balance between making the process manageable and ensuring balanced participation, especially between developed and developing countries.

Does this in any way help create a smaller, more focused COP? We’ve discussed in the past how COP has become unmanageably large and must be scaled back.

At the Bonn Climate Change Conference this year, we had a lot of discussion about how to increase the efficiency of the process — and those meetings were attended by heads of delegations. This conversation will continue in Belém, but I wouldn’t expect a big shift. There’s a lot of sensitivity around any big changes to the process, for example, discussions about limiting delegation sizes. A big issue is finding a balance between making the process manageable and ensuring balanced participation, especially between developed and developing countries. And the question of limiting participation numbers — is that for parties, government representatives, observers, or different types of stakeholder categories?

Let’s turn to some of the substance. At the end of COP29, parties agreed to the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance of USD 300 billion per year to support climate action in developing countries. How is COP30 set to build on that decision?

The NCQG is a step forward compared to the previous goal of USD 100 billion, but it really lags behind developing countries’ expectations. And it doesn’t match the level of expected needs, which is in the trillions.

In the decision on the NCQG adopted last year, it wasn’t just about setting the level at USD 300 billion. Many other things were addressed in that decision. It also called on the COP30 Presidency to develop a roadmap to step up efforts to reach USD 1.3 trillion per year in climate financing to better reflect developing-country needs. Over the past year, Brazil led these discussions, reaching out to different kinds of actors — including the private sector and multilateral development banks — to see how they can be brought on board. Since this was not conducted in the negotiations, per se, there are a lot of question marks as to the shape of that roadmap.

In Bonn, parties had a chance to provide feedback to the Brazilian Presidency. Observers also had a chance to engage with the Presidency on how to design the roadmap. But truly, Belém will be the moment where we will see what they managed to come up with.

How important is this roadmap in delivering on expectations from developing countries and rebuilding goodwill in the climate negotiations?

That roadmap is very important. Everybody agrees that USD 300 billion per year is not enough to reach the level of climate action we need, even the countries that are providing the finance. How to mobilize actors beyond the process is always a big question, right? Because the parties — the national governments — committed to participating in the Paris Agreement and implementing its objectives, but private actors and development banks have their own agendas. So, the task of designing a meaningful and achievable climate finance roadmap is huge.

It might surprise some people to hear that NDCs are not technically on the agenda in the negotiations at the moment.

Countries were due to submit their updated national climate plans to the UNFCCC this year. Will those plans come up at COP30?

2025 marks another milestone for the Paris Agreement. Countries are supposed to submit the third round of so-called nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to the agreement. These are the national climate plans that countries put forward every 5 years. The expectation is that these plans are progressively more ambitious — that they constitute parties’ best efforts — and they should be informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake, which is this process of taking stock of where we’re at in implementing the goals of the Paris Agreement. The new NDCs were supposed to be submitted in February 2025. However, few countries had submitted by that time. More arrived over the summer, but some big emitters have yet to submit them formally.

A big question is how well these national climate plans are designed. Looking at the outcome of the first global stocktake, the expectation is that these NDCs are aligned with a 1.5°C pathway and that they cover all sectors and greenhouse gases. Another key question is how this third round of NDCs responds to the calls formulated in the global stocktake decision to transition away from fossil fuels and ramp up renewable energy capacity.

Whether the NDCs will be formally discussed in Belém remains to be seen. While there’s been media attention on the submission process and several country coalitions are calling for a space to reflect on this latest round, it might surprise some people to hear that NDCs are not technically on the agenda in the negotiations at the moment.

Who are the big emitters who have not yet submitted?

Probably the most prominent example is the EU, which came to the UN General Assembly in New York and said it would submit its NDC ahead of COP30. It shared a range for its emission reduction goal, but agreement is still lacking at the EU level.

What progress do you expect on how countries agree to measure their ability to cope with climate change?

Probably the biggest issue we will see progress on in Belém is the indicators to track progress on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). That goal was established in the Paris Agreement, but it is rather vaguely phrased. It’s all about enhancing adaptive capacity, but it does not describe what that looks like.

To make it more concrete, parties agreed on a set of 11 targets in the GGA framework. These targets relate to sectors—for example, to water, to health. However, they also relate to the cycle of adaptation planning—so, setting specific targets for the planning phase, the implementation phase, and then the monitoring and evaluation phase.

Parties have been moving through a 2-year process where experts examined a range of indicators available to track progress on these targets. At one point, we were talking about several thousand indicators! Now the experts have put forward a set of 100 that parties will hopefully agree on in Belém. We don’t expect much debate on many of the proposed indicators, except for those related to means of implementation (so, finance). And that’s actually something for which the experts provided options for political decisions to be taken in Brazil.

What other items should observers keep their eyes on?

There are always many issues that will be addressed at the climate COP. I want to point to a few.

Countries are expected to adopt a new gender action plan. There have been negotiations on this at several COPs and intersessional workshops. But hopefully at COP30, they will agree on a list of actual activities to implement in the context of the gender work program.

In the decision on the global stocktake, parties have agreed to establish a technology implementation program, and in Belém, they will continue debating the shape of that program.

There will also be a lot of discussions on capacity building and other typical agenda items, such as agriculture, just transition, and research.

How is Brazil handling its COP Presidency?

Brazil has long engaged in the climate negotiations in its own capacity and within alliances of different forms. It has a huge diplomatic corps, which helps with the enormous task a Presidency has of liaising with parties ahead of the COP.

The Presidency also typically emphasizes issues that are important to them. That’s one of the reasons the COP is taking place in Belém. The issue of deforestation, specifically in the Amazon, is of crucial importance in Brazil. How that will lead to progress in the negotiations and in declarations adopted at the margins of the COP, we’ll see.

A COP is a mobilizing event for a lot of different types of actors, and the Brazilian Presidency has tried to do exactly that through its action agenda. We’ll see what kind of initiatives are launched this year—and to what extent there will be follow through and monitoring of the commitments announced.

For many negotiators, it doesn’t matter where the conference takes place.

Do you think the symbolism of having this meeting in the Amazon is going to impact the negotiations?

From the outside perspective, perhaps. The world will probably see more pictures about the Amazon and hear more about Belém and the issues on the ground. For some stakeholders, it will provide an opportunity to connect with local communities.

But to be honest, for many negotiators, it doesn’t matter where the conference takes place. We go to the venue early in the morning and then sit in meeting rooms that typically don’t have windows. We’re there for 12, 14, 15 or more hours and go back to our hotel rooms in the dark. I think the human experience is probably going to be rather limited for those hunkered down in negotiation rooms.

We have again seen a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. How do you think that will impact the talks?

There are many facets to the U.S. withdrawal. It’s less shocking because it’s the second time, but the fact that we haven’t seen a new NDC put forward by the United States changes the dynamic. It puts the spotlight even more fiercely on others. Attention on China has always been strong, but this year, there were even more questions about the ambition level they’re putting forward in their NDC. It also heightens scrutiny on the EU.

But it’s not just about the NDC or emission reductions from a big emitter. We’re also talking about research capacity. Decisions in the United States about funding climate observations and publicly sharing climate data—including decades-old historical series that researchers around the world rely on—will affect climate action down the line.

We often mention leadership, but I think we need many more frank discussions on that. Governments still shy away from taking difficult decisions or engaging in straightforward discussions with their citizens.

Are there any questions you wish someone would ask you about the COP? Are there any issues you wish we would focus more energy on?

I wish we would talk more about responsibility. In some ways, we had these discussions at the margins of this year’s UN General Assembly and in the context of the work of the International Court of Justice. We often mention leadership, but I think we need many more frank discussions on that. Governments still shy away from taking difficult decisions or engaging in straightforward discussions with their citizens. There are vital debates we need to have on how we want to live, what it takes to get there, and what we are willing to compromise on and collectively resolve. Really, we need to mobilize all of society to have these discussions and chart out a better future for everyone.

** **

This article was originally published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and is republished here as part of an editorial collaboration with the IISD.