Can multilateralism still deliver at COP30?

From calls to reform climate finance to demands for equity and adaptation, experts say COP30 will be the real test of whether global cooperation can still deliver results

COP30 is upon us. Amid a global geopolitical churn, where climate has slipped down the priority list, the world will head to Belém, Brazil, for what the COP30 Presidency has called the “Implementation COP”. Last year, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) grappled with questions regarding the relevance of the annual climate summit. This year, with the Amazon rainforest as the backdrop, the stakes are both symbolic and substantive.

In the run-up to COP30, CarbonCopy hosted a podcast series that featured six experts on climate finance, climate science and energy to understand what lies ahead at the climate summit that begins on November 10, and why the summit still holds relevance despite the political noise and scepticism that threaten to drown its significance. 

The COP30 Presidency is clear on what their ultimate goal is — to save multilateralism. “We all know that we can only tackle climate in a multilateral way,” COP30 CEO Ana Toni told CarbonCopy. “And as there is so much tension in the geopolitics, we feel COP30 will be a key moment to strengthen climate multilateralism.” 

Brazil’s presidency seems keen to steer the process away from the superficial “wins” that recent COPs have been in the news for toward what Toni calls “actions that make sense for real people.” The focus is on accelerating solutions already within reach, which include forest conservation and finance reform, and making them work for developing nations. These are lofty aims considering the US has turned its back on the climate crisis, with no other Global North countries stepping in to fill that void. Many vulnerable countries have also complained about the lack of sufficient funds to make it to Brazil or afford the pricey accommodation available on the UNFCCC official list.  

All of this means COP30 will open under the weight of two parallel realities. A world increasingly divided and distracted, and a planet running out of time. Whether Belém can bridge that gap will determine not just the fate of this “Implementation COP”, but the credibility of the climate process itself.

What is on the agenda?

On top of the agenda is the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap, which was announced at COP29. The plan aims to mobilise $1.3 trillion in climate finance annually by 2035. Last year, countries pledged $300 billion. All eyes are on the roadmap, likely to be released before COP begins, which is expected to outline the form of these funds and their disbursement. 

Toni said the presidency is working with finance ministers, central banks, and multilateral institutions to ensure “real-time transparency and accountability” in how funds are mobilised and spent. “Reform of multilateral banks is absolutely vital,” she said. “We also need to make the climate funds more fit for purpose, more agile, more accessible, especially to least developed countries.”

Pepukaye Bardouille of the Bridgetown Initiative agrees, but warns that structure matters more than size. “The capital is there within the wider system,” she noted. “But does it have the right risk profile, pricing structure, or tenor? We need more, cheaper, longer-term financing — 40 to 50-year money for adaptation, not just 15-year loans.”

Adaptation needs to step out of mitigation’s shadow

So far, most COPs have revolved around mitigation, with negotiations largely centred around cutting emissions, setting targets and tracking progress. But developing countries, including India, are pushing for COP30 to shift that imbalance and focus more on adaptation. They argue that adaptation has long been neglected to the point that it has now become an immediate need for poorer nations already bearing the brunt of climate impacts. 

“Adaptation must be placed on an equal footing with mitigation,” said Dr. Indu Murthy, sector head for Climate, Environment, and Sustainability at CSTEP. “That means measurable targets, predictable finance, and agreed metrics for tracking progress.” For Murthy, the real shift lies in how countries define adaptation. “It cannot be framed as a matter of finance alone,” she said. “It must be seen as a question of resilience-building, of development itself, and of justice.”

She argued that COP30 should focus on making the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), which will be discussed at the summit, measurable and accountable. “The GGA is stuck on weak metrics, fragmented governance, and dilution of equity principles,” she said. “Developing countries like India need to push for stronger language on finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. Unless equity is the central piece of the framework, we won’t get meaningful outcomes.”

Toni confirmed that the presidency shares that goal. “Adaptation is absolutely a priority for COP30,” she said. “We’ve seen the devastation from heatwaves, floods, and droughts. It’s time adaptation gets the attention it deserves. We hope to deliver a package of outcomes that makes adaptation a real part of both the negotiation and the action agenda.”

Energy transition amidst a geopolitical crossfire

The tectonic shift in the global energy landscape is already being felt. The return of the Trump administration has dynamically changed conversations around fossil fuels, renewables and questions of responsibility. 

“The US wants to be the world’s largest exporter of natural gas,” said Vijaya Ramachandran, Director of Energy and Development at the Breakthrough Institute. “It’s moving away from renewable subsidies, and that will affect technology development. But this administration’s message to poor countries, that it will not impose its energy preferences, has been welcomed in Africa.” 

Murthy put forth, what she called, a “contrarian view to most people”. “For the poorest countries, this is the right approach. Africa’s natural gas reserves must be exploited to meet industrial needs. You can’t build factories or fertiliser plants on intermittent renewables.”

Her broader critique, however, highlights the imbalance in the global system. “Rich countries have not found a viable decarbonisation path for poor countries,” she said. “They’re demanding rapid fossil fuel phaseouts without providing the money or technology to make that transition. That’s not a viable proposition.”

Ramachandran sees one potential area of opportunity amid the turbulence — nuclear energy. “India is a very attractive market for small modular reactors,” she said. “It has the regulatory capacity and technical know-how. We could see major collaboration with the US on adapting new nuclear technologies for developing markets.”

What will India’s role be?

At COP29, India vociferously rejected the $300 billion climate finance outcome during the closing plenary session. For some, it was India positioning itself as a leader of the Global South. For others, it was too little, too late. Sharpening this Global South leadership role will be key for India at COP30, say experts. But it will be a balancing act between solidarity with the Global South and the responsibility that comes with being a major economy.

“We are now in a position where smaller developing countries are turning to emerging economies like India,” said former diplomat and Indian climate negotiator Manjeev Singh Puri. “They’re saying, you too must act, not just demand money and adaptation support. So India must lead, but also defend its development space.”

He sees India’s consistency as an advantage. “We were called a naysayer in Paris, but we were the yes-sayer. We set up the International Solar Alliance, we announced net zero by 2070, and we’re the only G20 country on track to meet and exceed our NDCs,” he said. “Green leadership is embedded for us because it’s in our own interest.”

Vaibhav Chaturvedi, Senior Fellow at the Council of Energy, Environment and Water at Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) added that India’s next Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) — the “NDC 3.0” — will be watched closely. “Whatever India puts forward becomes a signal for policymakers, investors, and industry,” he said. “If we align our NDC with the 2070 net zero goal, that keeps our credibility strong.”

Keeping the process alive

The political tension surrounding the US has added as some may call it an unnecessary layer of complexity for the COP presidency. Puri warned that Washington’s role at COP30 could again be disruptive rather than constructive. “The United States by itself has great abilities to act as a major disruptor, and that’s something we must understand,” he said. “At this juncture, even the Europeans, who were once the strongest climate champions, seem less willing to do much. The push now is on emerging countries to pitch in, which turns the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities on its head.”

Puri sees this as a defining tension of Belém. “We can’t tackle a crisis of this scale bilaterally or unilaterally,” he said. “The process must stay alive, but the US approach makes that harder.”

Bardouille seemed a bit more positive in her outlook. “We can’t just shout that the system must change. We have to co-create that change, through trust, collaboration, and practical reforms that make finance actually work.”

If COP29 was about setting a climate finance number, COP30 will be about proving that systems can deliver. As Ana Toni put it, “We cannot just stand still and wait for public money to come.”

For India, the stakes are particularly high as it positions itself as a bridge between two increasingly fragmented worlds. “We are today the fifth-largest economy, soon to be the fourth. We are a country of consequence. India may not be able to solve global problems alone, but global problems can’t be solved without India,” said Puri. 

What we need to see at COP30 is not another round of promises, but proof that the world can still come together and act collectively to fight the climate crisis. 

About The Author

Anushka Mohite

See author's posts