COP30: mirage for climate victims

FOR countries standing on the frontline of the climate crisis, every annual United Nations climate conference carries a fragile mixture of hope and apprehension. Yet this year’s summit in Belém, COP30, was supposed to be different. Held 10 years after the signing of the Paris Agreement and hosted for the first time in a region synonymous with both planetary salvation and global neglect the Amazon basin it was billed as a turning point. Leader’s spoke of renewal, negotiators promised course correction and civil society prepared for a moment of renewed ambition. But as the conference closed, the sense of disappointment was unmistakable. For millions in climate-vulnerable nations, COP30 resembled not a moment of resurgence but a harsh reminder that the world’s promises continue to fall short when it matters most.

 

 

From its inception, the Conference of the Parties has been the diplomatic engine of global climate governance. It has produced celebrated milestones from the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, to the entry into force of the convention in 1994, to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and the Paris Agreement of 2015. More recently, COP26 urged a ‘phase-down’ of unabated coal; COP27 created the long-fought-for Loss and Damage Fund; COP28 acknowledged the need to ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels; and COP29 wrestled with formulating the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance. Each conference carried its own triumphs and shortcomings. But COP30 was expected to be a different kind of summit, a moment of reckoning where pledges would finally meet the urgency of lived experience.

 

 

 

Five major expectations accompanied the lead-up to Belém. First, it was assumed that countries would finally submit refreshed, ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions , as required under the Paris Agreement’s ratchet-up mechanism. These plans were meant to be more comprehensive, addressing not only emissions cuts but also adaptation, finance and loss and damage. Reality, however, painted a different picture. While some countries did submit revised plans, the overall level of ambition was far from what science demands. The world has yet again postponed the hard decisions, leaving the structural deficits in ambition intact.

 

 

 

Second, global adaptation efforts were expected to shift decisively from planning to implementation. For years, nations have produced National Adaptation Plans, yet their execution has dragged under the weight of limited financing, inadequate capacity and bureaucratic hurdles. Belém was supposed to mark a new era where adaptation would be treated not as a secondary pillar but as an urgent global priority. The adoption of an indicator framework for the Global Goal on Adaptation was indeed a modest step forward, offering a basis for measuring resilience, vulnerability reduction and adaptive capacity. But without meaningful financial commitments, frameworks remain little more than paper promises.

 

 

Third, COP30 was anticipated to bring a breakthrough in climate finance. After COP29 formally adopted the New Collective Quantified Goal, developing nations were looking to Belém for a detailed delivery pathway. The scale of global need estimated at $1.3 trillion annually for developing countries alone requires a transformation of the international financial landscape. But the conference stopped short of establishing binding commitments or accountability structures. Instead, it produced a two-year work programme, ensuring that discussions will continue but not guaranteeing that action will follow. For countries already experiencing climate-fuelled disasters that drain their national budgets, this felt less like progress and more like postponement.

 

 

Fourth, the Loss and Damage Fund was expected to move decisively into operational mode. After the political victory of its creation at COP27, climate-affected nations desperately needed the mechanism to begin delivering tangible support. COP30 did launch the Fund’s first call for proposals, with $250 million available for immediate projects an undeniably important milestone. Yet the amount is a fraction of what is needed. For countries witnessing disappearing coastlines, collapsing ecosystems and communities repeatedly displaced by cyclones or droughts, the allocation felt symbolic rather than transformative. The broader questions how the Fund will be scaled, governed and kept accountable remain only partially addressed.

 

 

Finally, the tenth anniversary of the Paris Agreement demanded a broader shift from negotiation to implementation, from rhetoric to results. Climate diplomacy has matured, but climate action has not kept pace. COP30 needed to reinforce the integrity of the multilateral system while empowering local actors, institutions, and community-level resilience. Despite renewed calls for capacity-building and locally led adaptation, the outcomes of Belém did little to change the balance of power or resources between global institutions and vulnerable communities.

 

 

To be fair, COP30 was not devoid of positive developments. The decision to triple adaptation finance by 2035, though delayed and diluted, provides at least a directional signal. The Belém Mechanism for Just Global Transition offers a new platform for cooperation, technical support and knowledge-sharing. The recognition of nature-based solutions and the links between public health and climate impacts was long overdue. And progress on adaptation indicators gives countries a clearer framework for reporting and accountability. These achievements should not be dismissed.

 

 

Yet the fundamental truth remains: the gains do not match the scale of the crisis. For climate-vulnerable nations like Bangladesh, small island states, drought-stricken African countries and communities in the world’s deltaic and coastal regions-the outcomes of COP30 simply do not reflect the urgency of the moment. The distance between scientific warnings and political commitments is widening, not narrowing.

 

 

Bangladesh stands as a stark example. Rising sea levels, recurrent cyclones, salinity intrusion, river erosion and extreme heat have already reshaped livelihoods and economic security. Every year of inaction pushes millions closer to displacement, economic loss and irreversible environmental degradation. For countries like Bangladesh, climate conferences are not diplomatic rituals, they are existential negotiations. And when these negotiations yield incremental progress instead of systemic change, the sense of betrayal runs deep.

 

 

COP30 was meant to serve as a turning point. Instead, it exposed once more the fragility of global solidarity. The world’s most climate-vulnerable nations came seeking security, justice and a credible path forward. What they received was a mixture of half-measures and delayed promises. For them, COP30 was not just a missed opportunity, it was a shattered dream.

 

 

Md Moniruzzaman is a professor and Md Mominur Rahman is an assistant professor at at the Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Management.