While government delegations and civil society representatives at the pre-COP in Brasilia this week had hoped for bigger advances on key topics, one stood out as winning broad backing for a leap forward at next month’s UN climate summit: adaptation.
Efforts to adapt to worsening extreme weather and rising seas have long trailed behind measures to cut planet-heating emissions in terms of political support and funding. But as storms, droughts, floods and extreme heat take an ever-higher toll across the world, that imbalance could shift significantly at COP30 this week’s discussions suggest.
COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago told Climate Home that he’s hoping for an adaptation package to be agreed in Belém, which would include a new goal to measure progress on adaptation and a new target to increase finance for climate resilience in developing countries.
“An adaptation package would be important. I said during a closed-door meeting that I would like for COP30 to be remembered as an adaptation COP,” Corrêa do Lago said in an interview on the sidelines of pre-COP30.
Natalie Unterstell, president of the Brazilian Talanoa Institute, told Climate Home conversations on adaptation showed clear progress. “Practically all delegations mentioned the need to elevate adaptation to a higher political level in Belém,” she said.
In Brasilia, which attracted delegations from nearly 70 countries, India said COP30 – the first UN climate summit to take place in the Amazon – needs to be a COP of adaptation. Island nation Barbados urged to increase ambition on adaptation, while Palau called for finance for adaptation to be scaled up.
The group of Least-Developed Countries (LDCs), meanwhile, reiterated a proposal to triple adaptation financing flows compared to 2022 – a year in which developed countries provided and mobilised $32.4 billion.
“For the first time at the pre-COP, we heard from more countries in favour of this proposal, but it still doesn’t have the support of everyone, especially not from developed countries,” said Unterstell, who has been following discussions on the topic.
An annual progress report shows that agriculture and wildfires continue to decimate forests despite a global promise to stop their loss this decade
The context for boosting adaptation finance – which covers only a small share of identified needs – is difficult, with the US slashing most of its aid under Donald Trump and other key donor countries paring back their development spending amid wars and fiscal pressures.
That would be far short of the estimated $40 billion needed to honour the promise developed countries made four years ago at COP26 in Glasgow to double their adaptation finance from 2019 levels by this year.
Concerned about this trend, and the huge gap between the funding on offer and their adaptation needs, poorer countries want Belém to be the moment to set a new and ambitious adaptation financing goal for the coming years.
Unterstell said this could be discussed under the Global Goal on Adaptation and, particularly, the Baku Adaptation Roadmap agreed during COP29 to advance progress on the adaptation provisions of the Paris Agreement. Another option could be its inclusion in a text prepared by the presidency called a cover decision, but it’s still unclear if COP30 will end with one, she said.
Ministerial consultations held on October 15, 2025, during pre-COP30 in Brasilia. (Photo: Rafa Neddermeyer/COP30 Brasil Amazônia/PR)
Decision due on adaptation indicators
In Brasilia, there was widespread recognition of the need to complete the Global Goal on Adaptation – agreed in the Paris accord 10 years ago – at COP30 by defining the indicators that will guide and monitor adaptation policies in areas such as food production, water and health.
After a process that began with nearly 10,000 indicators, countries are now discussing a far shorter potential list of 100 that should be decided upon at COP30.
At the closing of the pre-COP, Ana Paula Chantre Luna de Carvalho Pereira, environment minister of Angola and one of the coordinators for the adaptation talks, said there was still work to be done by the end of the month to finalise the indicators, so they “are applicable globally, flexible, and reflective of implementation and progress in all countries”.
At the meetings in Brasilia, some governments expressed the need to quickly finalise the definition of the indicators during the first week of COP30 and leave the second week for talks on more political aspects and implementation.
In response, the COP30 president said this could be possible. Civil society representatives were more sceptical, however, because of the differences among countries regarding the indicators, including the total number listed and which are most important. Finance is another likely sticking point.
Lucas Di Pietro, policy consultant and former adaptation director at Argentina’s Ministry of Environment, said the indicators are key to translate the political progress into “measurable and comparable results”.
“Their development must reflect the diversity of contexts and capabilities, allowing each country to adopt those most relevant to its national reality,” said Di Pietro. “Rather than rushing to approve them, it is important that the final result is balanced and linked to the effective provision of means of implementation, such as finance, technology and capacity-building.”
Many countries – especially some developing ones – consider it essential to include indicators related to the financing provided by developed countries to developing ones, while others argue that all types of financing should be monitored — including private sector investments.
With the International Court of Justice’s landmark advisory opinion on climate change hot off the press this July, hopes were high it could be used as a diplomatic lever for stronger climate action at COP30 in Brazil. But it proved a difficult tool to wield in a tense atmosphere.
Yet, while some countries wanted the ICJ’s non-binding conclusions to feature in the main political decision approved at November’s climate COP in the Amazon city of Belém, the lack of a coordinated strategic push meant that did not happen, legal experts said.
The Pacific island nation, which led a campaign for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to clarify states’ climate duties, said the legal opinion must not be “left on paper”
The International Court of Justice has advised that the level of climate finance given to developing countries must be compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C
The US administration’s efforts to roll back policies on clean energy and emissions cuts go against the top court’s opinion, which could be used by lawyers to fight back
But Jennifer Bansard, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin team leader, told journalists at COP30 that these requests were “at very generic levels” and did not go into the courts’ actionable findings.
“Deep, deep, deep red line”
The closest the ICJ advisory opinion came to being mentioned in a formal text was during a review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM). This is key as experts believe the decision has particularly significant implications for the new loss and damage fund.
During these discussions, the Independent Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Nations (AILAC) said the AO provides “an informed legal foundation” for advancing work on loss and damage. They pointed to “the need for comprehensive assessment and health protection” for vulnerable groups and “forms of reparation” This was supported by Vanuatu, which led the diplomatic work resulting in the ICJ opinion.
But Saudi Arabia, representing the Arab Group, responded that the ICJ’s final outcome is “non-binding” and “does not represent parties’ views” even though it participated in the process. Negotiations, it added, are a “party-driven process based on consensus, and not litigation”.
According to a source in the room, the Arab Group described the inclusion of the ICJ AO anywhere in the WIM document as a “deep, deep, deep red line”. “If you insist on discussing it, we might as well just suspend this session to not waste each other’s time,” said Saudi Arabia’s negotiator. The AO is not mentioned in the final agreed WIM text.
Harjeet Singh, founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation and strategic advisor to the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said the group was particularly concerned about the ICJ’s reference to the status of a state as developed or developing as “not static”.
“They feared that formally recognising the opinion would open the door to limitless legal liability for fossil fuel production,” he explained.
Left out of the COP30 cover decision
In addition, the AO’s recognition of a “just and fast transition in line with best available science” was mentioned by Fiji, for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), at an inaugural meeting on the Just Transition Work Programme. AILAC, Egypt and the UK also raised it during just transition negotiations, while Malawi used it to try to frame transition finance as a legal necessity.
Some states had expected the cover decision to recognise the AO in some form, but text drawn up by Brazil’s COP presidency did not include relevant wording.
Data visualisation developed by law professor Margaret Young and designers Dan Parker and Stanislav Roudavski.
Singh said the COP30 battle lines were drawn so sharply on the ICJ opinion because it validates the claims of vulnerable countries for climate justice, while historical and large polluters wanted “to avoid acknowledging any legal framework that implies liability”.
But, he added, while pushing back strongly against it, developed countries “neither championed nor explicitly opposed it in open plenary to avoid negative optics”.
The ICJ’s recognition that COP decisions may have legal effects could also make negotiators more wary of what they agree to.
In the closing COP30 plenary, Palau for AOSIS noted the ICJ’s clear assertion of 1.5C as the legal temperature limit. Yet the final Mutirao decision explicitly reiterates the Paris Agreement’s language of “pursuing efforts” to reach that level, while retaining the original goal of “well below 2°C”.
No coordinated push to champion the AO
Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for the Solomon Islands, argued the COP30 decision “undermined” the ICJ’s conclusions. But barring a few nations like Saudi Arabia, he saw the overall outcome as a “failure of capacity and coordination, rather than a principled opposition to using the AO”.
Insiders said government negotiating teams remain too separate from their legal teams, and the former were not properly briefed on how the AO could be used in practice.
The leadership expected from climate-vulnerable countries, particularly the island nations that had advocated for the AO in the first place, also seems to have been absent. A briefing by Ed King and Lindsey Smith, who work on international climate strategy for the Global Strategic Communications Council, described AOSIS’s showing at COP30 in particular as “insipid”.
Neither AOSIS nor Regenvanu responded to requests for comment.
Influencing the wider narrative
Nonetheless, Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa who has followed the climate talks for many years, believes the AO is “starting to influence the wider narrative around responsibility and liability”.
“Though it did not make the ‘waves’ in the formal text that many hoped for, it was clearly the ‘undercurrent’ beneath many streams of negotiation,” agreed Singh.
Nikki Reisch, climate and energy programme director at the Center for International Environmental Law, an organisation that supports the youth activists who sparked the AO process, said the opinion also supports “the need to reform the UNFCCC to make it fit for purpose”. That includes preventing fossil fuel industry influence and allowing majority voting so that a handful of countries cannot block climate action.
Eyes on Colombia fossil fuel transition conference
In 2026, the opinion may start to play a stronger role on the global stage, including at an international conference on a just transition away from fossil fuels co-hosted by Colombia and The Netherlands next April.
The Fossil Fuel Treaty initiative says that gathering will align with the AO, “which confirmed that states have a legal obligation to protect the climate, including by addressing fossil fuel production, licensing and subsidies”.
Experts, meanwhile, expect more domestic lawsuits underpinned by the advisory opinion aimed at pushing countries to raise their ambition on cutting emissions and say inter-state litigation cannot be ruled out.
“COP30 in Belém is by no means the last word on the ICJ AO or the climate duties it confirms,” Reisch said.
After holding stable for two years, China’s carbon emissions may climb back up as the construction of new fossil fuel power plants accelerates and recent policy changes cloud the outlook for clean energy, a new report warned.
The world’s biggest carbon polluter is expected to keep total emissions flat in 2025 despite rising energy demand – a sign that clean power may, for the first time, fully offset the growth in electricity consumption, the analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) showed.
But the Finland-based research group cautioned that a “concerning” policy environment for the next few years increased the risk of an emissions rebound. It added that China was also set to miss its key target for cutting carbon intensity – CO2 emissions per unit of gross domestic product – this year, meaning steeper reductions will be needed to hit its headline 2030 climate goal of slashing carbon intensity by 65%.
Belinda Schäpe, China policy analyst at CREA, said it was unclear how strongly committed China remained to its targets,despite leaders’ assertions that the government always makes good on its climate promises.
“All of this uncertainty raises a lot of questions around where emissions are going,” Schäpe told Climate Home News. “At the moment, it’s very finely balanced. They are just about flat but could well go up or down again based on the decisions that the government will make.”
New pricing model for renewables
Record solar energy installations and strong growth in wind power capacity have increased the share of non-fossil fuel electricity this year, with emissions from the power sector set to decline for the first time since 2016, the report said. But that progress has been partially counteredby the rapidly growing use of coal for the production of plastics and other chemical products, meaning overall emissions are expected to remain stable.
At the same time, experts have warned that China’s new pricing system for solar and wind projects risks slowing the clean energy boom. Under the new policy introduced last June, developers of new solar and wind power plants need to secure contracts with provincial authorities through competitive auctions, instead of being guaranteed a fixed price.
Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia oppose a UN resolution for nations to start discussing options for a global minerals agreement to reduce the environmental impacts of mining
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Schäpe said prices had been “very, very low” in some of the auctions so far. “Of course, that’s great for consumers, but it’s really bad for project developers because they don’t want to go ahead and invest in new projects facing the risk of no returns,” she said.
Earlier this year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) cut its forecast for China’s 2025-2030 renewables growth by 5% due to the changes in the pricing model. The watchdog’s head Fatih Birol said the profitability of renewables projects – especially solar and wind – was expected to decline between 10% and 15% with the new policy.
Coal power boom continues
Coal power plants, on the other hand, are protected from this market-based system, relying instead on long-term power purchase agreements that lock in prices, Schäpe said, describing it as “unfair competition”.
China’s rapidly expanding coal power fleet is adding to the concerns. In 2025, the country has added the largest amount of coal-fired capacity since 2015, while progress on retiring older plants remains very slow, CREA’s report highlighted.
In its new NDC, China set an absolute emission reduction target for the first time, committing to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by between 7% and 10% by 2035 from unspecified “peak levels”.
Aerial photo shows the ship unloading coals at Lianyungang Port east China’s Jiangsu Province, 12 June, 2025. Oriental Image via Reuters Connect
Aerial photo shows the ship unloading coals at Lianyungang Port east China’s Jiangsu Province, 12 June, 2025. Oriental Image via Reuters Connect
Focus on next five-year plan
Schäpe said that the absence of a base year could create an incentive to raise emissions and “storm the peak” – pushing them as high as possible to make future reduction targets easier to meet.
She said this put the focus on China’s 2030 carbon intensity target, adding that if Beijing was still serious about meeting it, emissions would need to peak “around now”.
China targeted an 18% reduction between 2021 and 2025, but it is projected to achieve about 12% by the end of this year, CREA’s report said. If that is confirmed, China will then need to significantly ramp up efforts to cut carbon intensity in the next five years to achieve its headline climate commitment for 2030.
Analysts expect China’s new five-year plan – the blueprint for its economic development – to provide more clarity on the country’s energy policies next year.
“We will see how the government is going to balance these two opposing forces: the outgoing coal industry interests and the new cleantech sectors that are meant to become the driver of future growth,” Schäpe said.
Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran are among countries opposed to discussing options for agreeing on global norms to protect people and the planet from the impacts of mining, processing and recycling minerals needed for the clean energy transition, documents seen by Climate Home News show.
Environment officials gathered in Nairobi, Kenya, ahead of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) next week are discussing a resolution by Colombia and Oman that aims to make mineral supply chains more transparent and sustainable at a time when growing demand is spurring resource-rich countries to court investment and boost production.
They have proposed the creation of an expert group to identify a range of binding and non-binding international instruments “for coordinated global action on the environmentally sound management of minerals and metals” from mining to recycling. The group would also look at how to handle mining waste and provide guidelines on recovering minerals from tailings responsibly.
Those instruments could range from a global minerals treaty to a non-binding declaration or set of standards on best practice. The resolution is co-sponsored by Armenia, Ecuador and Zambia.
But Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia, which is emerging as a major player in mineral supply chains, oppose launching a process that could lead to an international agreement on the issue, according to several sources and documents shared with Climate Home News.
Countries will vote on the proposal next week, during the seventh session of UNEA, the world’s top decision-making body for environmental matters.
China, which dominates the processing of 19 of 20 minerals deemed critical for the global economy, has so far stayed quiet about the proposal, but analysts said Beijing was unlikely to support any supranational initiative to govern mineral supply chains.
China’s priority is “to remain sovereign throughout the process of how these minerals are produced and traded” and to promote cooperation “on its own terms”, said Christian-Géraud Neema, an expert on Chinese engagement in Africa’s transition minerals sector and the Africa editor of the China-Global South Project.
Mining firms say extracting minerals from tailings is a sustainable way to boost global supplies, but local communities want to see benefits this time around
As EV sales boom in Jordan, a lack of formal infrastructure for dealing with end-of-life batteries is leading to some innovative solutions
The US, which has been trying to counter China’s critical minerals clout, is not attending UNEA, while the EU – another major global market – is understood to broadly support the proposal.
A spokesperson for the US State Department said: “Our team in Nairobi is focused on the US-Kenya relationship and delivering results for the American people, rather than litigating endless woke climate change theater.” The European Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Several other countries have raised objections. Chile, a top producer of copper and lithium, wants to narrow the focus of the resolution to voluntary cooperation on illegal mining.
In Africa, most countries back the Colombia-Oman proposal, but Uganda and Egypt oppose it, said Nsama Chikwanka, director of Publish What You Pay Zambia,an NGO focused on resource sovereignty.
“Race to the bottom”
Campaigners say countries should unite at UNEA to pave the way for talks on the issue, with some saying binding rules should be the eventual target.
“The investments that are coming to countries like Zambia are from multinational enterprises and national laws are inadequate to ensure that robust standards are applied. So we need something that is internationally binding,” Chikwanka said.
This comes after opposition from China and Russia thwarteda push by mineral-rich developing countries as well as the UK, the European Union and Australia to reflect the environmental and social risks associated with mining-related activities in the outcome of COP30.
“What we are seeing at the moment is a huge race to the bottom of environmental standards at the same time as the impacts of mining are already immense,” said Johanna Sydow, a resource policy expert who heads the international environmental policy division of Germany’s Heinrich-Böll Foundation.
“It is the chance now to create a long-lasting space for governments to work together on this issue,” she told Climate Home News.
Farmers Nelson Banda and Elizabeth Bwalya stand in a field of maize burnt by a major acid spill at the Sino-Metals Leach Zambia copper mine in February (Photo: Stafrance Zulu)
The race to extract minerals like lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt and rare earths needed to manufacture batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and other advanced digital and military technologies has led to growing cases of human rights violations, social conflict and environmental harms around the world.
In 2024 alone, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre recorded 156 allegations of human rights abuses linked to the mining of energy transition minerals.
Counter-proposals favour non-binding measures
Opposed to global discussions about possible binding tools to govern mineral supply chains, Saudi Arabia and Iran have instead suggested the creation of a technical platform that could review the impacts of mineral extraction in developing countries, explore options for support to address them, and advance voluntary cooperation on environmentally-sound practices.
Saudi Arabia is already cooperating with mineral-rich nations on its own terms by investing billions of dollars in transition minerals abroad in a bid to become a global mineral processing hub that could become a counterweight to China’s dominance.
China, meanwhile, threw its weight behind a G20 agreement on a voluntary and non-binding Critical Minerals Framework intended to ensure that mineral resources “become a driver of prosperity and sustainable development”.
At the G20 leaders’ summit in South Africa last month, which was snubbed by the US, China also launched an economic and trade initiative on minerals, aiming to secure access to minerals in exchange for cooperation on technology, capacity-building and financing.
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Many local people are disappointed by efforts to repair the devastation left by foreign oil firms even as the Nigerian government plans to restart drilling
At least 19 countries, including Cambodia, Nigeria, Myanmar and Zimbabwe, alongside the UN Industrial Development Organisation, have reportedly joined the initiative.
For Neema, of the China-Global South Project, this is an explicit attempt to counter resource diplomacy by the US, which is offering developing countries security and military support in exchange for minerals.
“Producing countries in the Global South are more likely to be attracted by this approach because they know that the likelihood of Chinese companies and banks showing up is quite high,” he said.
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago
Climate Change2 years ago
Carbon Footprint2 years ago