As COP30 unfolds in Belém, governments face a real test. Will they finally commit to the public, reparative finance and structural changes that climate vulnerable countries have long called for, or repeat the delay that deepens today’s crises?
By: Matt Forgette, CESR's Program Associate
As COP30 gets underway in Belém, Brazil, the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) brings together state delegations, civil society, and, unfortunately, fossil fuel lobbyists for two weeks of negotiations on the climate crisis. This year’s summit follows last year’s disappointing COP29 in Azerbaijan, where the so‑called “Finance COP” closed with a climate finance goal of 300 billion dollars a year — far below the 1.3 trillion dollars demanded by the Global South and falling short of wealthy countries’ legal obligations to provide public, grant‑based climate finance.
In response, the Brazilian presidency has designated this year’s affair as the “Implementation COP”, part of an effort to re-establish the annual meeting as a place for decisive and ambitious climate action in the face of accusations that COP has become captured by corporate interests and thereby rendered incapable of implementing bold change. COP30 President-designate Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has attributed past disappointments to wealthy nations in the Global North, arguing that leadership must now come from the Global South: “the reduction in enthusiasm of the Global North is showing that the Global South is moving.”
At CESR we are closely engaged in the COP30 action, with our team following virtually and also co-hosting a side event with our partner La Ruta del Clima, entitled “Climate Reparations and the Power of Advisory Opinions”.
Here’s a quick dive into the most critical questions that must be answered at COP30:
1. Can the Baku to Belém Roadmap deliver an actionable path to $1.3 trillion?
The Baku to Belém Roadmap is a yearlong initiative launched by the Brazilian presidency in an effort to bridge last year’s COP29 in Azerbaijan and this year’s COP30 in Brazil by laying out how countries will mobilize at least $1.3 trillion a year in climate finance for developing nations. The B2B Roadmap is set to conclude here with a high-level event summarizing key findings from its report.
As noted by CAN-International’s Rebecca Thissen, the Roadmap holds potential: “The roadmap could support the UNFCCC to be sending strong signals to the international community…(while) also using the convening power that the UNFCCC could have, so bringing those different actors to the table in a more structured and predictable way.”
Still, civil society advocates warn that the B2B process has so far leaned toward private sector and multilateral development bank solutions that risk sidelining public, grant-based finance that the B2B process has thus far leaned toward private sector and multilateral development bank (MDB) solutions which risk undermining the push for public, grant‑based finance. Poor‑quality, loan‑based finance would only deepen debt burdens and inequalities, while so‑called “innovative” tools like blended finance, debt swaps, or climate‑resilient debt clauses distract from real solutions.
Because of this, CESR and our allies stress that it is imperative that the B2B Roadmap align with states’ legal obligations under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. Article 9.1 establishes a clear legal and moral obligation: developed countries must provide public finance to developing nations. This is not aid, it is a matter of historical responsibility and climate reparations.
Furthermore, because of the severe underfunding of adaptation and loss and damage finance, it is critical that COP30 secures sources for reparative finance for climate vulnerable countries in the Global South. Public finance must be prioritized, especially in the form of grants and concessional resources, and at least half of all funds directed should be directed towards adaptation and loss and damage.
2. Is the Just Transition Work Programme the best hope for tangible progress?
Perhaps the most promising and concrete development to emerge out of this summer’s SB62 meetings in Bonn was a draft text on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP). Given the criticism of UNFCCC lacking urgency, this was a rare and welcome tangible step forward. The JTWP, shaped by Indigenous and working communities worldwide, aims to help countries design fair transition pathways as economies respond to the climate crisis, a crucial task given the ILO’s estimate that nearly 80 million jobs could be lost by 2030 due to the climate crisis.
However, if the Just Transition Work Programme is going to truly matter, it must deliver transformative action and not merely dialogue. That’s why CESR joins our civil society partners in calling for COP30 to establish a new Belém Action Mechanism (BAM). As an extension of the JTWP, the BAM would function as a mechanism to guide, accelerate, and strengthen just transition efforts on the ground.
It is paramount that any transition mandate must include tackling debt and other systemic barriers. Unfortunately, many existing just transition programmes, such as those in the Philippines and Indonesia, are already pushing countries deeper into debt. Loan‑based or blended finance risks worsening this trend, diverting scarce resources to creditors and undermining climate and social action. COP30’s JTWP outcome text must recognize the need for good quality, non‑debt creating public finance as central to just transition.
3. How will the international court advisory opinions impact negotiations?
This year saw two landmark rulings that will reverberate through COP30. On 23 July 2025, the ICJ issued its advisory opinion on states’ obligations regarding climate change. Just weeks earlier, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) had released its own advisory opinion on the climate emergency and human rights. Both opinions affirmed the climate crisis as an existential threat, and recognized that states have a binding duty under international law to prevent harm from climate change and that wealthy nations must provide financial and technological support to developing countries.
Taken together, these advisory opinions hold the potential to impact the COP30 negotiations in numerous ways. They reiterate CESR’s emphasis that climate finance constitutes an obligation, not charity. Developed countries’ duty to provide public, non‑debt creating climate finance is now further backed by international law.
It is critical that civil society advocates harness the rulings to push state parties into strict compliance in areas they have been wavering, such as the phaseout of fossil fuels. As explained by UN Special Rapporteur Elisa Morguera, “After the clarity of the ICJ advisory opinion, if we don’t have a meaningful decision on fossil fuels, then the [COP] process cannot be considered legitimate any more.”
Ultimately, COP30 in Belém is a measure of whether the UNFCCC process can still deliver meaningful change for the entire UNFCCC process for the entire UNFCCC process. Whether this “Implementation COP” delivers tangible progress will depend on whether wealthy nations finally meet their responsibilities and whether civil society can keep justice, rights, and public finance at the center of negotiations. CESR will be monitoring these questions and more throughout the next several weeks, and we look forward to keeping you updated.