COP30 in Belém: small steps forward, big gaps remain
Two weeks ago, our brief outlined what COP30 needed to deliver: clearer national climate plans, stronger protection for tropical forests, and credible finance for emerging economies. Now that the summit has concluded, the results show meaningful steps forward but stop short of the structural change that science indicates is necessary. Belém did not shift global climate politics, but it revealed where movement is finally happening and where the system remains gridlocked.
A world trying to bend the emissions curve
COP30 prompted a surge in new national climate plans. By the end of the summit, 122 countries had submitted updated commitments covering about half of global emissions. According to the UN, these plans would reduce emissions by around 12% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels. This represents progress but falls far below the roughly 60% cut required to keep the 1.5°C goal technically feasible.
One notable achievement was the delivery of the first Biennial Transparency Reports by 131 countries. These reports provide detailed data on emissions, adaptation actions, and climate finance. Although reporting alone cannot close the ambition gap, it improves accountability and helps establish a clearer foundation for tracking global progress.
Forests at the center, but not at the finish line
Hosting the summit in Belém placed forests at the center of global attention. Yet political consensus remained elusive. More than 90 countries supported a global roadmap to halt and reverse deforestation, but disagreements over timelines and financing prevented it from being approved in the final decision text.
Brazil nonetheless launched the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, designed to pay countries to keep tropical forests standing. Early pledges of 6.6 billion dollars aim to mobilise up to 100 billion dollars of private investment. The facility is an ambitious step toward a dedicated financial architecture for forests, endorsed by 53 countries. Concerns remain about governance, long-term funding reliability, and whether Indigenous and local communities will receive sufficient resources.
Climate finance still not matching the scale of the challenge
Finance remained the central constraint across the negotiations. Despite momentum from the forest facility, countries did not agree on a new global climate finance goal, and major players such as China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates made no significant additional contributions. Discussions on reforming multilateral development banks and expanding blended finance tools continued but did not yield concrete progress on delivering the affordable capital developing economies say they need. Funding for loss and damage also advanced only through the limited channels already established. The mismatch between what countries aim to do and what they can pay for therefore remains wide.
The silence on fossil fuels
Unlike COP28, fossil fuels were largely absent from the Belém negotiations. Proposals for new commitments on coal phase out or fossil fuel reduction did not advance. This reflected resistance from major emitters and the Brazilian presidency’s emphasis on consensus. The omission stands in stark contrast to the scientific assessments released during the summit. Global emissions from fossil fuels and cement are expected to rise by roughly 1.1% in 2025 to a new record, and the remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C is equivalent to only a few years of current emissions.
Major powers present, but not leading
The cautious approach of the world’s largest economies shaped the tone and outcome of COP30. China emphasized technology cooperation rather than new climate or finance targets. The United States avoided major new commitments amid domestic political constraints. India focused on development priorities and equity considerations but did not strengthen its formal climate targets. Tensions around trade policy, critical minerals and industrial competitiveness limited opportunities for deeper cooperation. Without active leadership from major emitters, the summit became defined by incremental rather than transformational progress.
What COP30 ultimately means
Compared with expectations heading into the summit, COP30 delivered improved transparency, new initiatives for forest finance, and a broader recognition of the need to integrate climate action into economic and social planning. However, the summit did not produce breakthroughs on the speed of global emissions cuts, on the future of fossil fuels or on the scale of finance required for developing economies to act at the pace science demands. Belém highlighted the value of cooperation but also the limits of political consensus in a divided global landscape.
At Ortelius, our work continues to focus on aligning scientific necessity with economic feasibility. COP30 made clear that this gap remains significant, and that credible transition pathways, financial innovation and robust policy analysis will be essential.