Dipak Kurmi
The global climate regime, built painstakingly over decades under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), now finds itself teetering on the edge of irrelevance. At a time when scientific warnings on the urgency of climate action grow ever more dire, the negotiations meant to deliver solutions are increasingly viewed as ineffectual, gridlocked, and out of touch with the scale of the crisis. The recent developments leading up to the COP30 summit in Brazil this November represent both a critical moment of reckoning and a last chance to salvage trust in a broken system.
The UNFCCC, long the central forum for international climate cooperation, is facing a full-blown credibility crisis. Its foundational premise — that consensus-based dialogue would drive fair and ambitious action — has come under fire for enabling inaction and shielding powerful countries from accountability. The very architecture of climate diplomacy, built to be inclusive and democratic, now appears to be its Achilles’ heel. As the COP process prepares for its 30th iteration, it does so under the shadow of disappointment, division, and dwindling hope among the world’s most vulnerable nations.
The withdrawal of the United States from the climate negotiations following Donald Trump's return to the White House earlier this year has only deepened the malaise. With one of the world’s largest historical emitters walking away from its climate responsibilities, confidence in the global framework has been severely shaken. The absence of U.S. leadership has not only diminished the diplomatic leverage of the process but also emboldened other laggards to dilute commitments or delay action. In such a vacuum, Brazil, the host of COP30, has taken on the formidable task of restoring credibility, relevance, and equity to a forum that appears to be losing its moral and political centre.
The mid-year UN climate meeting held in Bonn in June 2025 served as an important precursor to COP30. Though the meeting was ostensibly focused on procedural efficiency, the discussions reflected deeper fractures. Countries acknowledged the increasing “scale and complexity” of the negotiations, a euphemism for their dysfunctionality. Proposals were floated to streamline agenda items, reduce redundancy, and limit the size and verbosity of national delegations — measures designed to enhance procedural efficiency, though hardly transformative in substance. There was also discussion on capping the size of negotiating teams to allow more equitable participation from smaller countries. However, the talks yielded no concrete outcomes and will continue into the main COP30 meeting.
Civil society groups and climate advocates, meanwhile, were unequivocal in their diagnosis of the crisis. More than 200 organisations issued an open letter in Bonn demanding five key reforms — the most important being the shift from a consensus-based decision-making model to a majority-based one in cases of persistent deadlock. Under the current system, every country has de facto veto power, and a single dissenting voice can torpedo the progress of over 190 others. This has led to watered-down agreements and low ambition outcomes. While the principle of consensus was designed to ensure fairness, it has become a tool for obstruction, especially by major emitters and countries with fossil fuel-driven economies.
Another contentious issue raised by civil society actors is the selection of COP host countries. Recent COPs held in Dubai (2023) and scheduled in Baku (2026) have drawn sharp criticism because of their hosts’ deep entanglement with the fossil fuel industry. Activists argue that countries that lack credible climate action records and are economically dependent on oil and gas should not be entrusted with steering the global climate agenda. There is growing concern that such hosts provide an undue platform for fossil fuel interests to shape outcomes in their favour.
This concern dovetails with broader worries about corporate capture of the UNFCCC process. The presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP meetings has steadily increased over the years. Critics allege that these representatives influence negotiations behind the scenes and lobby against ambitious language or binding targets. At Bonn, several groups demanded stricter rules to curb the involvement of polluting industries and protect the integrity of climate policymaking.
Despite the growing chorus for reform, such proposals are unlikely to be adopted soon, because any change to the process itself — paradoxically — requires unanimous agreement from all member states. Thus, the very mechanism that civil society groups seek to reform is also the obstacle to reforming it.
Against this backdrop, Brazil’s stewardship of COP30 becomes critical. The country, under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has signaled its intent to inject fresh momentum into climate diplomacy. In a recent letter to all UNFCCC parties, Brazil acknowledged the process’s limitations and urged countries to rethink its future. It pointed to long-standing operational inefficiencies — such as bloated agendas, overlapping themes, and scheduling conflicts — and called for a more inclusive and representative process, particularly for smaller and less-resourced nations. Brazil has also floated the idea of establishing additional multilateral mechanisms to supplement the UNFCCC and ensure that decisions taken at COPs are effectively implemented.
In a more ambitious move, Brazil has drawn up a 30-point action plan to collaborate with other countries on accelerating climate responses. While the specific contours of this plan remain under wraps, it is understood to include priorities around deforestation, indigenous rights, energy transition, and loss and damage finance. Brazil’s role is doubly symbolic, given the Amazon’s centrality to both climate stability and environmental justice. Hosting COP30 in Belém — deep within the Amazon basin — is a potent political statement that aligns the summit with frontline communities rather than elite negotiation halls.
Yet, the real test of COP30’s success will hinge on whether it can deliver tangible progress on the most contentious issue dividing the developed and developing world: climate finance.
Since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, developing countries have consistently flagged the inadequacy of financial support as the single greatest obstacle to implementing climate action. Under the agreement, developed countries were supposed to mobilise at least $100 billion annually to support mitigation and adaptation efforts in the Global South. Not only has this target not been met in any consistent fashion, it also grossly underestimates the actual financial needs of poorer nations.
Recent estimates place the annual climate finance requirement of developing countries at a staggering $1.3 trillion. Yet, developed countries have proposed to raise only $300 billion annually — and not until 2035. This yawning gap is more than just a numerical shortfall; it is an indictment of the broken promises and skewed power dynamics that define global climate governance. At Bonn, the frustration of developing countries boiled over. They stalled proceedings, demanding a dedicated session on finance. Though the discussions were inconclusive, they ensured that the issue would dominate the agenda at COP30.
This growing assertiveness from the Global South was further bolstered by the BRICS summit, also held recently in Brazil. The group, which now comprises nine influential developing economies, issued a separate declaration on climate finance, calling on developed countries to fulfill their UNFCCC and Paris commitments, and to significantly scale up support for adaptation. The message from BRICS was clear: climate justice is not negotiable, and trust cannot be rebuilt without meaningful financial commitments.
Brazil, therefore, is not just hosting another climate summit; it is presiding over a potential turning point in international climate diplomacy. It must balance its role as a bridge-builder between North and South while advancing its own agenda of ecological protection and social justice. The outcome of COP30 will be judged not by the length of its declarations or the eloquence of its speeches, but by its ability to repair a process that is fraying at the seams.
If the credibility of climate negotiations is to be restored, COP30 must be a watershed — not a whitewash. It must demonstrate that the UNFCCC remains a relevant and responsive forum capable of evolving with the times. It must show that vulnerable countries have a voice, that polluters are held accountable, and that promises translate into action. In a world on the brink of climate catastrophe, half-measures and hollow commitments are not enough.
What is at stake is not merely the reputation of a process, but the future of a planet. The hour is late, but not too late — if COP30 can rise to the moment.
(the writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
