Belém: What sort of COP was it?

COP30, held in Belém, Brazil, in the heart of the Amazon, was initially billed as the “COP of implementation” – but it didn’t quite live up to expectations on this front. Instead, it delivered an unpredictable mix of breakthroughs, incremental progress, and political drama. The venting of frustrations led some to label it alternatively the “COP of truth.”  I’d rather call it the “adaptation COP” or, ultimately, the “nature COP” – let me tell you why.

For many, its greatest disappointment was the failure of the final text of the COP30 agreement to include an explicit commitment to phasing out fossil fuels. Instead, “recalling” the COP28 UAE Consensus, it pledged to develop voluntary roadmaps outside the UN process: one way to keep discussions going, but without the clout that a formal COP target might achieve. This is a symbolic failure, even if you subscribe to an increasingly common argument that ambition on energy transition has to be balanced with resource and geographical constraints.

Another area where progress fell short was on nationally-defined contribution (NDC) targets: China and the EU provided updated NDCs to the COP, with more countries due to supply them by year-end, but the aggregate response looks likely to be insufficient to meet the 1.5°C target. This is not unexpected but is still unwelcome, particularly given the impact of increasing oil demand (the International Energy Agency now forecasts it will increase until 2050) on emissions and temperature targets.

The apparent downgrading of climate science was also a major concern, with little attention paid (for example) to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or other recent scientific findings. So if this was the “COP of truth” in terms of protest, it wasn’t the “COP of truth” on science. Some countries on the front line of the effects of climate change (e.g., Bangladesh), as well as many developed economies, have protested about the apparent downgrading of the IPCC. One problem is that others within the group (e.g., China and Saudi Arabia) have apparently been arguing for delays to publication of scientific reports. I return to this issue of shifting political alliances below. Independent forecasting publications, such as the Global Carbon Budget, released just before COP, continue to provide data to highlight the severity of the problems we are facing. But we can’t do without the fundamental science.

Better news included the reaffirmation of the 2024 New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), which sets targets for delivering climate action funds to developing economies. The aim is for developed economies to contribute USD300bn annually by 2030; total transfers of USD1.3tn annually will include contributions from public, private, multilateral, and philanthropic sources. Of course, much needs to be done here in terms of tracking and transparency. The detailed response of multilateral development banks isn’t yet clear, and structural barriers to delivering climate finance remain (e.g., around FX risk, governance, and insurance). Clearly, mobilising capital at this scale will require big changes from lenders and recipients, but the implicit aim of lowering the cost of capital in emerging markets (often five times higher than in developed economies) remains a laudable one.

Economics, as well as disappointments around fossil fuel phase-outs and NDC, may have helped encourage the COP’s shift of focus from mitigation to adaptation and resilience strategies. Economic losses from climate change have been estimated at almost USD370bn in 2024: there is now a perception that physical climate risks are [WD1] overtaking transition risks. The COP30 agreement calls for a tripling of adaptation finance by 2035 (relative to the COP26 target), and this builds on an existing trend, with multilateral development banks doubling adaptation finance to USD26bn in 2024.

Global damage costs from natural disasters, 1980 to 2025

Source: Ourworldindata, Deutsche Bank AG. Data as of Dec 2025.

The adaptation funding gap (which the UN Environmental Programme forecasts to be USD310–365bn annually by 2035) is already established as a structural investment theme for investors (e.g. water infrastructure, climate-smart agriculture, and disaster-proof housing). Financial innovation continues with resilience bonds, catastrophe-linked securities, and blended finance vehicles gaining traction. Tokyo’s recent USD330mn Climate Resilience Bond – oversubscribed sevenfold – shows what can be done. Where adaptation comes too late, the Loss and Damage Fund established at COP30 has started small (with a USD250mn call for proposals), but the focus on direct access and fast disbursement is welcome. There was also agreement on a set of indicators on adaptation progress, although this list was watered down at the end of the COP.

The launch of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) just before COP signaled a major step forward in financial innovation for forest protection. By mobilizing private, public, and philanthropic capital, investing it in a diversified portfolio, and using returns to reward tropical forest countries for preserving or restoring forests, TFFF demonstrates how capital markets can drive nature-positive outcomes. This approach is not an alternative to mechanisms like Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs), established under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, but it is a critical complement. Both rely on robust financial architecture to succeed, and together they can help unlock the scale of investment needed for sustainable development. During the COP, Deutsche Bank joined several organizations in signing a letter of intent with Honduras and Suriname to pioneer a complementary new model for rainforest conservation, with the aim of creating high-integrity carbon credits under the ITMOs framework to reward the protection of existing forests at a national scale. We remain committed to finding innovative, market-based solutions for climate and nature.

The COP, however, also saw politics and economics interact in new ways. One positive was the establishment of a Just Transition Mechanism to assure indigenous and worker rights and biodiversity protection during the transition to more sustainable economies: we need to see how this will work.

Other political/economic developments were more controversial. The absence of an official US delegation and the resulting changed web of regional alliances provided an opening for oil producers and others to present some climate policy as a lever of national regional industrial strategy, and intended to increase national trade competitiveness. (The final COP30 statement says that climate measures should not be “a disguised reduction of international trade.”) This critique was one reason for attacks at the COP on the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which begins levying a carbon border tax next year.

Like it or not, these shifts reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground. Developing economies are seeking to win greater representation in how sustainability strategies are agreed on and implemented, at a time when many developed economies (for their own economic and political reasons) appear less focused on the subject. Developing economies may have many reasons to favour different approaches to sustainability. They may have a more pressing need than their developed peers to focus on what I would call “sustainability + x” – ensuring that sustainability policy does not hurt economic growth and fosters economic and social resilience. Businesses will, of course, have to adapt their approach to match changing approaches to transition and what this means for future dependencies and likely scarcity.

So why would I ultimately call it the “nature COP”? Its location at Belém, gateway to the remarkable Amazon river system, kept participants aware of the importance of nature. The shift in focus, noted above, from mitigation to adaptation also played a role. Nature is central to many adaptation and resilience strategies, and this made it, by default, a central pillar of sustainability discussions at the COP. Financial innovation is also increasingly focused on nature, for example, through the TFFF mentioned above.

I don’t know how we’ll describe the next COP, to be held in Antalya, Türkiye, next year, but nature will surely be at the heart of it. I strongly believe that we need to see nature as a whole system and shouldn’t try to separate out the issue of climate change. Doubtless, COP31 will be challenging in parts, but these gatherings remain important. Success is never easy, but we must keep striving for it. 

This article is also published on LinkedIn. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.