COP30: Climate agreements not dead, but grasping at straws

(Belém, Brazil) — With over 55,000 attendees, the first COP held in the Amazon was the second largest in history. It was marked by striking presences — COP30 had the largest percentage of fossil fuel lobbyists on record — and absences — it was the first one without a U.S. delegation.

The final agreements were both promising and disappointing. The Belém Package reached consensus on 29 decisions on topics such as adaptation indicators and finance, gender, trade and just transition mechanisms. Mentions of a fossil fuel phase-out were left out.

Both U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell acknowledged countries’ frustration with COP30’s outcomes, but celebrated it as evidence that “climate cooperation is alive and kicking.” 

“There was a very real risk of previous commitments being unraveled or watered down,” Antonio Hill, a Just Transition advisor at the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), told Gas Outlook. “The fact that going backwards wasn’t among the outcomes of COP30 reflects the spirit of the negotiations.”

Observers welcomed the conduct of the Brazilian COP30 presidency. “From a process standpoint, Brazil avoided an agenda war at the outset,” Nicole Oliveira, executive director at  the Arayara International Institute, told Gas Outlook, referring to the swift approval of the agenda on the first day of the conference, whilst in parallel negotiating four contentious topics: finance, trade, transparency and ambition. 

Left out of the formal agenda, they finally entered the “global mutirão”, a Brazilian word meaning collective efforts. “Whilst the presidency didn’t call it a cover decision, that’s what it was,” Stela Herschmann, a climate policy specialist at the Observatório do Clima, told Gas Outlook, referring to the typical “cover decision” — a high-level political document summarising key outcomes and political will — that is drawn up at COPs.

Unlike traditional cover decisions however, the mutirão consulted parties throughout the entire process — something Herschmann called a well-crafted diplomatic solution.

Roadmap to phase out fossil fuels

The most striking element of COP30 was at once a presence and an absence: a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels. While not originally on the table to be discussed at COP30, the issue gained momentum following President Lula da Silva’s speech at the Leaders’ Summit, when he called on countries to overcome dependence on fossil fuels.

“A fossil fuel phase-out went from being a ‘non-issue’ to becoming a red line,” said Herschmann. The proposal garnered the support of over 80 countries and made its way into the negotiating rooms. Having appeared in a draft earlier in the week, it was even treated by some parties as a condition for approving a final outcome. But it was cut out of the final text.

Instead, the Brazilian presidency launched a roadmap in its own capacity. “There was a strong call from civil society and from the parties for a phase-out roadmap, and the COP presidency took that on board,” Ricardo Baitelo, a project manager at the Brazilian Institute of Energy and Environment, told Gas Outlook. “But its inclusion in the final text was not subject to the presidency.”

While some observers like Herschmann and Hill considered it a clever solution to keep the spark alive all the way to COP31, others lamented its limitations. “It is disappointing that no mention of the phase-out made it into the final document, where it could have been translated into a binding commitment,” Ana Carolina González Espinosa, senior director for programmes at NRGI, told Gas Outlook. “It weakens COP28’s landmark resolution.”

Although it is a positive signal, Baitelo says it is still too early to tell whether the roadmap will be effective. “We need a clearer understanding of what is being proposed with regard to the three elements required to deliver a phase-out: a timeline, a governance structure, and finance.”

Changes on the chessboard

The absence of a U.S. delegation at COP30 was remarkable. In his closing speech at COP30, Simon Stiell celebrated that “194 countries stood firm in solidarity — rock-solid in support of climate cooperation,” in spite of “one country” that stepped back.

“The U.S. has long played an outsized role in climate negotiations, anchoring progress on climate action. Although it was absent, it is also true that the country operates through proxies,” said Hill. He highlights parties like Saudi Arabia, whose interests are closely tied to those of the Trump administration.

According to Hill, the international community didn’t rise to the occasion to take strategic advantage of the U.S. absence, pushing for more ambition. Alongside Russia and OPEC members, Saudi Arabia was credited with blocking any mentions of fossil fuels in the final texts. The outcome was seen by observers as a victory for the group.

“The main issue when the world’s largest historical emitter walks away from the table is that rather than taking away the problem, it subtracts its responsibility,” said Oliveira.

Meanwhile, Colombia emerged as a climate leader. The country was among the most vocal in calling for concrete commitments on the phase-out. Once the issue was removed from the draft texts, Colombia was among the roughly 30 countries that signed a letter to the presidency requesting its reinstatement.

In response to COP30’s final text, Colombian President Gustavo Petro said that anything less than a clear reference to fossil fuels as the main cause of climate change would be “hypocrisy.” In April 2026, the country will host the First International Conference for the Phase-out of Fossil Fuels.

The conference is non-binding, which, according to Hill, may bring advantages. “As countries don’t have to abide by the process, they are free to participate and submit proposals. That allows for a broader exchange of views that can help push the agenda further.”

(Writing by Amanda Magnani; editing by Sophie Davies)