Our Take on the Outcome at COP30

Our Take on the Outcome at COP30 By: Florence Ogola Fuchs November 25, 2025 COP30 Venue: Photo by 10 Billion Solutions / Mariana Castaño Cano. Widely described as the “implementation and action COP,” COP30 in Belém, Brazil, was convened at a moment of overlapping global crises. Escalating climate impacts collided with geopolitical instability, from the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza to armed clashes in Sudan. The summit, therefore, carried a dual burden, advancing urgent climate implementation while navigating a fractured international landscape. To top it up, the glaring absence of the US at the conference came with its own disadvantages.    The summit came a decade after the Paris Agreement pledge to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Yet, for the first time this year, that threshold was breached, signalling that the cost of delay is mounting and the window for decisive action is closing fast. At the heart of the agenda was operationalizing the phase-out of fossil fuels, building on the landmark commitment made at COP28 in Dubai. Adaptation was also a critical discussion following the call from developing countries facing adverse impacts of climate change, to triple the adaptation fund.    Equally critical was the debate on forest preservation. Hosting the summit in Belém, against the backdrop of the Amazon rainforest, underscored the symbolic and strategic importance of safeguarding the world’s largest tropical forest. The Amazon is both a global carbon sink and a frontline of deforestation pressures, making its protection central to any credible climate roadmap. Lobbyist Influence at COPs Could Undermine their Legitimacy Indigenous Peoples join the march in the streets of Belém on Saturday 15 November calling for climate action and fossil fuels phase out. Photo by 10 Billion Solutions / Mariana Castaño Cano. At COP30, the presence of lobbyists grew significantly over the years, compared to previous climate summits. Over 300 representatives from industrial agriculture attended, with 77 traveling under official party badges. This marked a 14% increase compared to COP29 in Baku. For instance, Brazil’s top meat companies JBS, MBRF, and Minerva sent 13 delegates, while Bayer, a multinational pesticide corporation, sponsored 19. The scale of participation underscores the growing institutionalization of corporate interests within climate negotiations. Industrial agriculture remains a major driver of deforestation, land degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for roughly 14% of global totals. According to FAO, it ranks just behind energy and transport as one of the largest emitters. Scientists warn that meeting the Paris Agreement targets will require “radical changes” in how food is produced and consumed, changes that run counter to the interests of many of these lobbyists. The presence of fossil fuel lobbyists was even more pronounced. A staggering 2,200 representatives attended COP30 in Belém, meaning one in every 25 registered participants was tied to fossil fuel interests. This level of representation raises strategic concerns about the integrity of negotiations, as industries most responsible for climate change continue to dominate the conversation. The strategic challenge is clear: unless the role of lobbyists is curtailed, climate summits risk becoming arenas where vested interests dilute ambition, stall progress, and undermine trust. Safeguarding the legitimacy of COPs will require stronger guardrails to ensure that the voices of civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and vulnerable nations are not drowned out by corporate influence. Adaptation Financing – Ambition without Delivery Africa continues to bear the brunt of climate change impacts despite contributing the least to global greenhouse gas emissions. This inequity has fueled a strategic push to elevate adaptation as a standalone priority, distinct from mitigation, ensuring that vulnerable nations are not sidelined in global climate negotiations. The Africa Group of Negotiators – representing 54 member states – has been pivotal in advancing the continent’s interests across multilateral and bilateral platforms. Central to their agenda is the demand to triple adaptation funding, a move designed to equip Africa and other developing countries with the resources needed to withstand escalating climate shocks. Developing nations are also pressing for a measurable global adaptation goal, one that aligns financial flows with the scale of impacts. While wealthy countries pledged approximately $120 billion annually toward adaptation – part of the broader $300 billion climate finance target, the delivery timeline was extended from 2030 to 2035. This delay undermines urgency and risks widening the resilience gap. Compounding the challenge, much of the pledged finance is tied to the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) and is structured predominantly as loans rather than grants. This financing model risks deepening debt burdens for vulnerable economies, raising critical questions about fairness, sustainability, and the credibility of climate finance commitments. Here are the recent pledges to the fund. Fossil Fuel Transition – No Deal A global agreement to transition away from oil, gas, and coal extraction proved elusive at this COP. Earlier in the week, President Lula emphasized that while no single formula can define the transition, the demonstration of commitment by all nations is indispensable. He further called on wealthy countries to support Africa’s renewable energy transition, stressing that support must go beyond financial pledges to include technology transfer and knowledge sharing. “Wealthy countries can support Africa’s energy transition, the production of biofuels, and the expansion of wind and solar power. This is not only about providing limited financial resources, but also about transferring technology and knowledge.” In a final push to secure consensus, Brazil introduced a roadmap for fossil fuel phase-out. However, the proposal faced strong resistance from oil-producing nations led by Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India. This setback came despite mounting frustration from Latin American and European countries, who voiced disappointment at the absence of a deal. For many developing nations, the debate revealed deeper fault lines. Some argued for the right to exploit their fossil fuel reserves, citing the historical precedent of industrialized nations that built prosperity on hydrocarbons. Activist marched in the streets of Belém on Saturday 15 November calling for climate action and fossil fuels phase out. Photo by 10 Billion Solutions / Mariana Castaño Cano. What Next? After