George Dikaios, Senior Research Fellow, ELIAMEP
The Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has concluded without impressive results. What seems to be confirmed is that the international community understands the need to combat climate change, as an agreement was reached at the last minute. However, neither the required progress (on what was already agreed upon since 2015) was observed, nor the political will to breathe new life into the implementation of existing policies (which would lead to achieving the goal of maintaining the Earth’s average temperature at 1.5 degrees Celsius). The current political situation is challenging, and the results of COP30 were easy to agree on: a promise to increase funding for adaptation to climate change, the creation of a just transition mechanism, and the recognition of indigenous rights. Once again, there was no agreement on the process of transitioning to climate neutrality (and thus reducing the use of fossil fuels), nor on other critical issues, such as deforestation (which was expected as COP30 took place in Brazil). Even worse, there seems to have been an informal agreement to leave the burden of active climate action to “coalitions of the willing” operating outside the United Nations framework, as the latter seems to be a victim of the current trend of drifting away from multilateral cooperation.
Emmanuella Doussis, Professor, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens; Head of the Climate and Sustainability Programme and Senior Policy Advisor, ELIAMEP
Every year, as the annual COP meeting on Climate Change is drawing to a close, a major debate starts up on how effectively the system of international cooperation is tackling climate change. This is because greenhouse gas emissions are still rising, despite the promises and ambitious plans to switch to clean energy and reduce these harmful emissions. At the same time, the current geopolitical stand-offs continue to pose unprecedented challenges for multilateral cooperation. This year’s conference in Belém, on the Amazon, concluded without major decisions being made on the implementation of the Paris Agreement and, in particular, on a phase-out roadmap for fossil fuels. Instead, the main outcomes of COP30 were a voluntary fossil fuel reduction plan, a new target to triple climate change adaptation financing, and a mechanism for a just transition. It is clear that the annual global climate conference cannot provide both meaningful and all the solutions to climate change, especially given the absence of a willingness to self-limit on the part of the major polluters. Substantial agreements are not possible (or even realistic) when there are 200 countries around the negotiating table, each at their own level of development and with their own priorities, interests and levels of harmful emissions. But COP can serve as a guide to what the international community is collectively willing to do to prevent further global warming, and indicate what needs to be done to achieve this goal.Othon Kaminiaris, Research Fellow, ELIAMEP
COP30 concluded after two weeks of difficult negotiations, resulting in the adoption of 29 decisions, the “Belém Package.” This package includes several substantive steps toward implementation: the establishment of a just transition mechanism, the commitment to triple adaptation finance by 2035, and the completion of 59 voluntary indicators to track progress under the Global Goal on Adaptation. In addition, and though outside the formal decisions, the conference advanced, under Brazil’s initiative, the FINI (Fostering Investible National Implementation) mechanism for financing mature adaptation projects, as well as the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, which mobilized USD 6.7 billion for the protection of tropical forests.
However, the central political deadlock remained: no reference to phasing out fossil fuels was included in the official decisions, despite pressure from at least 80 countries. Thus, while adaptation, finance, and just transition were strengthened, no path was agreed on for decreasing global emissions in the coming years. As a counterweight, Colombia and the Netherlands announced that they will co-host, outside the UNFCCC framework, the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels in April 2026, an initiative that may give an impetus to the COP process itself.
Looking ahead to COP31 in Turkey at the end of 2026, two issues, thus, remain unresolved:
a new collective climate finance goal (NCQG) that also covers mitigation, and the need for a shared approach to emission reductions in a decade requiring rapid and decisive acceleration.
Cheryl Novak, Research Associate, ELIAMEP
COP30 fell short of its central mandate, which is to accelerate collective action to keep global warming to 1.5°C and to establish a credible pathway for the phase-out of fossil fuels. The summit made progress on areas such as adaptation finance, Indigenous-led protection, and nature-based solutions, including the announcement of prominent initiatives like the Tropical Forests Forever Facility. Yet COP30 ultimately underscored the challenges of consensus-based multilateralism in a global environment characterized by divergent interests. UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell underscored COP30’s issues in his closing remarks, stating, “denial, division and geopolitics has dealt international cooperation some heavy blows this year.”
In response to the lack of progress on COP30’s core mission, its President, André Corrêa do Lago, announced plans to develop two “roadmaps” outside the formal negotiating process: one to halt and reverse deforestation, and another to support a just and orderly transition away from fossil fuels. Whether these parallel tracks can help unlock progress at COP31, or signal the beginning of a deeper schism between fossil-fuel-dependent states and more ambitious parties remains uncertain. Frustration over COPs opaque decision-making process and state accountability remains, as consensus rules mean countries’ positions on key provisions are undisclosed. Moreover, as in previous conferences, observers highlighted the significant presence of fossil-fuel-aligned interest groups seeking to shape outcomes. Participation by Indigenous, youth, and feminist organizations reached record levels, yet Indigenous representatives argued that their involvement remains largely symbolic and some staged blockades calling for stronger protections.
For countries in the Mediterranean, these shortcomings have direct implications. Under current policies, global warming projects now stand at 2.5–3.5°C, and Med region is warming 20% faster than the global average. This heightens existing pressures on water systems, agriculture, and food security. In this context, global agreements matter, but local action will be decisive for the future of the people of the region. Greece and its neighbors will need to accelerate renewable energy deployment, strengthen water and food systems resilience, and integrate climate risk across all planning processes. Regardless of multilateral setbacks, prioritizing climate security and system resilience should remain central to Greece’s national strategy.