30 years of climate negotiations: Lessons learned and what’s next at COP30

International climate negotiations have sought to balance economic growth with environmental urgency for three decades. From establishing the UNFCCC in Rio to the landmark Paris Agreement, global leaders have built frameworks to address the climate crisis. Yet, progress has been uneven. Persistent disparities in ambition, financing, and equity, particularly for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), youth, and non-G20 nations, highlight systemic challenges. COP30 in Belém, Brazil offers an opportunity to learn from past failures and redefine global climate governance, ensuring our next choices match the urgency of our time.

The big three agreements – UNFCCC, Kyoto, and Paris

These agreements laid the groundwork for global climate policy, but their effectiveness varies. The international framework for climate cooperation was born with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. The purpose was clear: stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system while protecting ecosystems and fostering sustainable development. Annual Council of Parties (COP) meetings were established to serve as accountability platforms where nations reported progress and strategized next steps. The UNFCCC emphasized monitoring emissions, adapting to climate impacts, and providing financial and technological support to developing nations. However, COP meetings have since evolved into sprawling, high-profile events with thousands of attendees, where only a few wield real decision-making power.

Building on the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 during COP3. For the first time, it introduced legally binding emissions reduction targets for developed countries, acknowledging their historical responsibility for the majority of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. While ambitious on paper, Kyoto was plagued by challenges. The U.S., the world’s largest emitter at the time, withdrew under the Bush administration, citing economic concerns and the exclusion of major developing nations like China from binding targets. This weakened global momentum, leaving the protocol's implementation uneven and its impact limited.

Credit: AFP and World Economic Forum

In 2015, the Paris Agreement at COP21 marked a pivotal shift in international climate policy. Unlike Kyoto, it required all countries—developed and developing alike—to submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and self-defined plans to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts. This bottom-up approach was designed to enhance inclusivity and flexibility, allowing nations to set goals aligned with their circumstances. The agreement also introduced a mechanism for progressively increasing ambition through periodic updates, known as the "ratchet mechanism."

While these three agreements laid essential foundations, their effectiveness has varied. The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol struggled with enforcement and equity issues, while the Paris Agreement’s reliance on voluntary commitments has faced criticism for insufficient ambition. As the world prepares for COP30, the challenge remains to bridge these gaps and ensure that global climate policy transitions from frameworks to actionable, equitable solutions.

Winners and losers of global climate policy

“While some countries lead, others are left behind in the fight for survival.”

The climate crisis has not been experienced equally across the globe. Small Island Developing States (SIDS), non-G20 nations, and major economies of the Global North grapple with starkly different stakes and responsibilities. At the heart of the disparity lies a tension between those most vulnerable to climate impacts and those with the power to shape the global response.

For SIDS, the stakes are life and death. Nations such as the Maldives, Tuvalu, and Barbados face existential threats from rising sea levels, intensifying storms, and salinization of freshwater supplies. These countries have been among the most vocal advocates for ambitious global action. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a coalition of 39 island and low-lying coastal nations, has consistently pushed for aggressive targets, notably championing the 1.5°C limit enshrined in the Paris Agreement.

Despite their moral authority, SIDS face significant challenges. Their small economies and limited negotiating capacities often leave them sidelined in key discussions, especially during informal gatherings in COP “Blue Zones.” While their calls for a loss-and-damage mechanism were finally recognized at COP27, implementation remains slow, with promised funds yet to materialize. The gap between commitments and action underscores the vulnerabilities these nations endure.

Beyond SIDS, non-G20 nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America struggle to balance their development needs with the demand for climate action. These nations, disproportionately affected by climate change, often lack the financial resources to implement robust adaptation measures. They have rallied under banners like the G77 and China, advocating for equitable solutions that acknowledge historical emissions responsibilities and prioritize financial support for adaptation and mitigation.

However, their influence is constrained by the dominance of G20 economies in negotiations. Non-G20 nations frequently find themselves excluded from informal discussions where critical decisions are made. Their limited access to technology transfer and climate finance exacerbates global inequities, leaving them with fewer tools to address their vulnerabilities effectively.

Major economies in the Global North wield outsized influence over climate negotiations. Figures like John Kerry, Tony Blair, Al Gore, and Emmanuel Macron have played pivotal roles in shaping the narrative and policy direction at COP gatherings. For example, Kerry has attended COPs almost continuously since 2011 as a senator, Secretary of State, and Climate Envoy, while Macron’s advocacy for the Paris Agreement placed France at the heart of global climate diplomacy.

This dominance, however, highlights a stark imbalance. G20 nations are responsible for nearly 80% of global emissions, yet their actions have often fallen short of their rhetoric. Pledges for $100 billion in annual climate finance for developing countries remain unmet, and major emitters continue to resist binding commitments to phase out fossil fuels. This discrepancy between responsibility and action underscores the systemic inequities at the heart of climate governance.

As the planet hurdles toward the 1.5°C threshold—now projected to be breached by 2034 rather than 2045—these disparities become ever more critical. For vulnerable nations, this acceleration is not an abstract number but a reality threatening lives and livelihoods. Without addressing the imbalances in power, access, and responsibility, global climate policy risks leaving the most vulnerable behind in its wake.

From activism to negotiation tables, youth at the forefront

Youth, Gen Z in particular, has become the conscience of the climate movement, challenging leaders to think beyond election cycles.T his generation, often dismissed in headlines as overly idealistic, is proving to be a formidable force for climate action. They are stepping into spaces where traditional institutions have faltered, bringing urgency and equity to the forefront of climate negotiations. From local grassroots efforts to influential roles at COP gatherings, their advocacy is a reminder that climate action isn’t a distant goal—it is a present necessity.

At the center of this movement is YOUNGO, the official youth constituency of the UNFCCC. Since its inception in 2009, YOUNGO has expanded its reach and impact, representing youth voices from over 100 countries. Beyond symbolic representation, YOUNGO participants have contributed to drafting technical reports, advocating for intergenerational equity, and influencing policy negotiations. During COP29 in Baku, they pushed for language around climate education and youth empowerment in financial mechanisms.

Youth activism is not confined to COPs. Grassroots movements like Fridays for Future, led by Greta Thunberg, have mobilized millions globally, demanding accountability and bold action from world leaders. These efforts have reshaped public discourse and generated tangible outcomes, including increased government climate pledges. Similarly, legal challenges like Juliana v. United States and recent European lawsuits highlight youth activists’ determination to hold institutions accountable for climate inaction.

These achievements come alongside persistent challenges. Many youth delegates face significant financial barriers, logistical hurdles, and a lack of access to informal negotiation spaces where key decisions are made. As COP28 in Dubai demonstrated, the representation of youth from the Global South remains disproportionately low due to systemic inequities, including travel costs and visa restrictions. This disparity underscores broader failures in global climate governance to equitably include marginalized voices.

Despite these obstacles, youth activists have consistently demonstrated their ability to transform setbacks into opportunities. As COP30 in Brazil approaches, their focus is on demanding accountability for climate finance promises, protecting biodiversity, and ensuring that intergenerational equity remains central to climate negotiations. Thirty years into global climate governance, their activism reveals both the failures and the potential of these processes: while institutions falter, grassroots efforts thrive.

The rise of youth in climate advocacy over the past three decades serves as a critical lesson. It reflects a failure of older systems to deliver meaningful results, but it also demonstrates the power of new voices to reimagine and reshape the future of climate action.

Lessons from the past, challenges ahead

Over three decades of global climate negotiations, the world has learned the hard way that ambition alone cannot drive meaningful action. Persistent failures in financial commitments, insufficient enforcement mechanisms, and systemic inequities have hampered progress. As the climate crisis intensifies, nations must move beyond rhetoric and adopt adaptive, innovative approaches to meet their obligations.

One of the most glaring failures in global climate governance has been the consistent inability of developed countries to fulfill their financial commitments. The "100 billion dollars per year" pledge, first promised in 2009 to support developing nations in transitioning to cleaner energy and building climate resilience, remains largely unmet. As of 2023, a significant shortfall persists, with many nations either underreporting or failing to deliver their contributions. This lack of fulfillment disproportionately impacts vulnerable nations, limiting their ability to implement mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Weak enforcement mechanisms exacerbate this problem. Without binding accountability measures or sanctions for non-compliance, financial pledges often become symbolic gestures rather than actionable commitments. Disputes over burden-sharing further hinder progress, as developed and developing nations clash over historical responsibilities and equitable solutions. The result is a fragmented system that struggles to deliver the necessary resources for a just and effective global climate response.

Anticipations for COP30 in Brazil

The upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Brazil will be a pivotal moment for global climate policy. COP30 will mark the first opportunity for nations to update their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in alignment with the 1.5°C temperature goal since COP29 fell short of expectations (NYT, 2024). With Brazil hosting in the Amazon region, the conference is expected to prioritize biodiversity conservation, Indigenous rights, and ecosystem-based climate solutions. The stakes are high, as nations must come prepared with economy-wide, ambitious targets covering all greenhouse gases.

Brazil’s leadership will also be under scrutiny. While the country has positioned itself as a climate champion, its reliance on oil exports and recent expansions in fossil fuel exploration have raised questions about the credibility of its commitments. The balance between economic development and environmental stewardship will likely define the success of COP30. 

The missed opportunities of the past three decades underscore the need for stronger accountability mechanisms, equitable financing, and holistic resilience strategies. COP30 offers a chance to address these gaps and set a new standard for climate governance. If nations can learn from their missteps and prioritize action over negotiation, the future of global climate policy may yet be rewritten.

Credit: UNEP

What’s next for global climate governance?

With each COP, the urgency grows. The question remains: will ambition translate into action? As global temperatures rise and climate impacts intensify, the stakes for effective climate governance have never been higher. The past three decades have shown the importance of inclusive decision-making, yet systemic inequities persist. Marginalized voices—youth, SIDS, and non-G20 nations—must be fully integrated into negotiations to ensure equitable solutions that address diverse vulnerabilities.

The potential withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement underscores the fragility of international commitments. Such a move could weaken global resolve and hinder progress toward critical emissions targets. However, COP30 in Brazil presents a unique opportunity to reset the agenda.

Nations must arrive with ambitious, actionable plans that prioritize accountability and justice. The challenge is not just to set goals but to meet them. Transformative change—grounded in equity and intergenerational responsibility—must become the defining feature of the next phase of global climate governance—the future hinges on how we adapt to the lessons of the past.