As the dust settles on COP30, the latest United Nations climate summit held in Belém, Brazil from November 10 to 21, 2025, the world is left to grapple with a familiar mix of hard-won progress and deepening divides. Billed as the "implementation COP," the event was charged with the weighty expectation of turning a decade’s worth of ambitious climate promises into real-world action. What unfolded, however, was a testament to both the complexity of global climate governance and the stubborn persistence of old geopolitical rifts.
The summit’s mood was set by the adoption of the ‘Global Mutirão’—a collective effort to tackle climate change that, according to German Ambassador Philipp Ackermann, “is emblematic of the need for countries to act together.” Speaking at the German Embassy’s ‘Climate Talks’ in New Delhi on December 1, Ackermann reflected on the summit’s outcomes, stressing that “credible climate action cannot be one-size-fits-all.” He underscored the importance of multilateralism, even when agreements are imperfect, arguing that “collective action is possible” only when countries retain flexibility to report on measures most relevant to their local contexts. His comments echoed a central theme of COP30: the need for implementation, not just abstraction.
South Asia Envoy to COP30, Arunabha Ghosh, also at the New Delhi event, emphasized this shift. “Implementation, not abstraction, is now at the core of global climate action,” he said. Ghosh highlighted that adaptation and resilience are immediate priorities for South Asian nations such as Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Bangladesh. He pointed out that “just transition must prioritize people—physical and financial assets can be repurposed, but livelihoods dependent on coal today cannot be abandoned.”
This focus on people and livelihoods was mirrored in the summit’s broader debates. For India and other developing countries, the results from Belém signaled a troubling continuity: the multilateral system remains adept at setting targets but chronically unable to mobilize the finance required to meet them. The summit’s central metric of success, the ‘New Collective Quantified Goal,’ fell short of developing nations’ evidence-based demand for $1.3 trillion in annual public grants. Instead, the ‘Baku to Belém Roadmap’ prioritized private finance and loans, raising concerns about exacerbating debt vulnerabilities rather than providing guaranteed support. Even the pledge to triple adaptation finance by 2035 was criticized for lacking a concrete delivery plan, effectively delaying urgent aid. As noted by experts in Nature and The Guardian, the $250 million pledged to the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) is dwarfed by the estimated $395 billion needed annually, highlighting a glaring gap between rhetoric and reality.
Germany, however, stepped up with tangible commitments. Ambassador Ackermann pointed to his country’s EUR 1 billion pledge for a fund to protect tropical forests, part of a broader effort that saw Germany exceed its 2024 international climate finance commitments by delivering EUR 11.8 billion—including EUR 6.1 billion from budgetary resources—and mobilizing over EUR 1 billion in private capital. “Germany remains committed to its climate-finance pledges, even under challenging circumstances. This trust is essential for successful global negotiations,” Ackermann said, reaffirming Germany’s reliability as a climate partner.
Yet, as the summit’s closing hours approached, the limitations of consensus-driven diplomacy became starkly apparent. Negotiations on advancing a global fossil fuel transition roadmap faltered, with no agreement reached. According to Carbon Brief, the Brazilian presidency reported “80 for and 80 against” including the roadmap in the final declaration. The process was muddied by inconsistencies: 14 countries were listed as both supporting and opposing the roadmap, and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) bloc—comprising 42 nations—was incorrectly identified as opposing the measure, despite public support from members like Nepal. Manjeet Dhakal, lead adviser to the LDC chair, clarified, “The LDC group has never blocked a fossil-fuel roadmap. [In fact], a few LDCs, including Nepal, have supported the idea.”
The opposition was primarily led by the 22-member Arab group, chaired by Saudi Arabia, and the 25-member Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) bloc, chaired by India, each with their own reasons for resisting the roadmap’s inclusion. While Saudi Arabia took what some saw as a significant diplomatic step by supporting the UAE consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels—without explicitly mentioning them—many nations remained wary of being ordered to act without sufficient international financial support.
Outside the official plenary, the Global South demonstrated a dynamic, solution-oriented push. Colombia’s declaration on transitioning away from fossil fuels, supported by over 80 countries, and the announcement of the First International Conference for the Phase Out of Fossil Fuels in April 2026, jointly hosted by the Netherlands, signaled growing willingness among nations to bypass consensus-based paralysis. This move nudged the COP president to announce a new roadmap on the transition away from fossil fuels under his leadership, hinting at a future where “coalitions of the willing” may drive progress even as the formal UN process stalls.
For developing countries, one strategic victory emerged: securing a decision to develop a new just transition mechanism—the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM)—by COP31 next November. Proposed by the Climate Action Network International and championed by the G77 and China, BAM aims to move beyond rhetoric to establish a funded, operational body to manage the socioeconomic impacts of the transition. In contrast, the EU’s preferred framework lacked financial mandates. The outcome ensures that social protection and workforce displacement are finally treated as core governance challenges.
Meanwhile, the summit’s composition drew scrutiny. The Kick Big Polluters Out coalition identified over 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists among the participants—one in every 25 attendees—outnumbering the combined delegations of the 10 most climate-vulnerable nations. Critics argue that this concentration of vested interests helped dilute the language around “transition away from fossil fuels,” despite the International Court of Justice recently affirming that phasing out fossil fuels is a legal obligation.
Still, there are glimmers of hope. Global investment in renewables has now doubled that of fossil fuels, with a quarter of all new vehicles sold worldwide being electric. Half of the power-generating capacity of China and India is now low-carbon, according to data from energy research firm Ember. Even at the summit, local initiatives like the family farm restaurant—which served 52,000 meals using ingredients from more than 50 community-based businesses—offered a taste of climate-friendly innovation in action.
As COP30 marked a decade since the Paris Agreement and underscored the urgency of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, the world was reminded that the next phase of climate action will hinge not on declarations, but on relentless implementation, creative collaboration, and a willingness to challenge entrenched interests. Whether the multilateral process can deliver a credible plan to phase out fossil fuels and finance the transition remains uncertain, but the pressure to act has never been greater.
