When you arrive in Belém, the air itself reminds you what is at stake. Thick, humid air heavy with the smell of jungle—that’s Belém for you, gateway to the Amazon. This year, it hosted COP30, the UN’s 30th climate summit, wrapping up on November 22, 2025, after two grueling weeks of haggling.
These COPs often seem like jargon-filled far-off talks. Truth is, they’re where nations decide if we’ll tackle climate change head-on—or keep kicking the can. Every bracketed word hides real stakes: jobs, homes, budgets on the line.
For Africa, it’s no game. We spew under 4% of global emissions but get slammed by endless droughts, floods nuking crops, cyclones flattening what we’ve scraped together. We’re bleeding 3-5% of GDP yearly to shocks—cash meant for schools, hospitals, water, roads. That’s the fire we walked into in Belém.
COP30 hit at a make-or-break time. Ten years on from Paris, we’re nowhere near track. Even if every pledge gets nailed, we’re staring down 2.3-2.8°C warming. For African nations already baking in heatwaves, erratic rains, and eroding coasts, that’s no future threat—it’s our daily grind getting worse.
The geopolitics did not help. The United States sent no official delegation. The leaders of China and India stayed away. Oil-producing countries arrived well organised, determined to block any strong language on phasing out fossil fuels. African delegations knew from day one that the road would be uphill.
And yet, the location mattered. Meeting on the edge of the Amazon was a constant reminder that this crisis is not just about “carbon accounting”. It is about forests, water cycles, Indigenous territories and the natural systems that make life possible. For Africans, whose own Congo Basin forest plays a similar planetary role, that symbolism hit home.
Climate Finance: A Step Forward, Still Far Behind Reality : If you ask African negotiators what keeps coming up year after year, the answer is simple: ambitious mitigation actions and climate finance. We know what needs to be done. What we lack are meaningful mitigation actions to drastically curb greenhouse gas and predictable resources as key enabler to mitigate, adapt, avert minimize and address loss and damage associated to climate change it, without sinking deeper into debt.
What We Brought from Baku: At COP29 in Baku, countries agreed on a new global climate finance target – the so-called New Collective Quantified Goal. Rich countries pledged to mobilise at least 1.3 trillion US dollars a year by 2035 for developing countries, with at least 300 billion from public sources. It was ambitious, on paper.
In Belém, our task was to turn that ambition into something more than a number in a decision document.
Adaptation: A Partial Victory: If there’s one area where Africa can point to a real step forward, it’s adaptation finance — the lifeline that helps countries deal with climate impacts that are no longer theoretical but already tearing through communities. This is the money that builds flood defenses before the next storm hits, supports farmers growing drought-resistant crops, strengthens water systems in regions drying out, sets up early-warning alerts, or equips hospitals to cope with heatwaves and climate-related diseases.
When we arrived in Belém, African countries stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Least Developed Countries and Small Island States. Our demand was clear and urgent: triple adaptation finance by 2030. That was the timeline we needed based on the science, based on the suffering already visible across our regions.
What we walked away with was a commitment to triple it by 2035 instead. Slower than we hoped, yes. Not the ambition we fought for, true. But in diplomatic terms, it still sends a strong signal: the world is finally beginning to acknowledge that adaptation is not charity — it is survival. And that shift in political tone matters, even if the pace leaves us uneasy
Equally important is how that money should be provided. We pushed hard for grants and highly concessional finance, not more loans. The final text acknowledges that adaptation support should not deepen debt burdens. It is not as strong as we would have liked, but it gives us a basis to keep insisting that “climate finance” cannot mean pushing already fragile economies further into the red.
If the 1.3 trillion dollar goal is actually reached, around 120 billion dollars a year should go to adaptation. That would help. It will not fully cover the needs. But it is more than what we have today.
The Baku–Belém Roadmap: The so-called Baku–Belém Roadmap tries to answer the question “where will this money come from?”. It talks about reforming multilateral development banks, scaling up grants, making better use of guarantees, expanding blended finance and exploring debt-for-climate swaps.
From an African perspective, the diagnosis is largely correct. The current financial system treats many of our countries as risky by default, inflating borrowing costs and slowing down access to funds. Recognizing that problem is a start! The real test will be whether these ideas lead to actual reforms in loan terms, credit ratings and access rules – or whether they remain polite paragraphs in a COP decision.
Loss and Damage: A Door Opened, but the Room Is Almost Empty: “Loss and damage” is a technical jargon for – irreversible impact when you reach the limit of adaptation to climate change- for very human realities: villages swallowed by the sea, farmland turned into desert, homes destroyed by storms, cultural sites lost forever. These are impacts you cannot adapt away.
During COP28 in Dubai, global leaders reached a consensus to establish a Fund for Addressing Loss and Damage — an important acknowledgment that certain climate effects are unavoidable, irreversible, and cannot be ignored. The fund made its initial request for proposals, nations concurred on replenishment schedules, and a timeline now indicates the first disbursements in 2026.
This is significant symbolically. For years, at-risk countries have been expressing a consistent message: there is a moment when adaptation hits its boundaries, when increasing sea levels, fierce storms, or failing ecosystems result in damages that no level of preparation can avert. Communities experiencing these challenges have consistently sought more than just empathy — they’ve requested assistance. The fund is, ultimately, a response to that request.
However, when you analyze the figures, the enthusiasm diminishes. By the middle of 2025, merely around 348 million dollars had truly reached the fund — from the **431 million** promised. A couple more million came in through alternative routes, but still far from the required amount. At the same time, Africa is estimated to encounter **hundreds of billions** of dollars in losses and damages annually by 2030.
Indeed, we have constructed the house. However, But right now, the cupboards are nearly empty.
African countries argued for more predictable and innovative sources – levies on fossil fuels, shipping, aviation. These options were discussed and then parked. For now, the fund depends on voluntary contributions from countries that have, historically, been slow to honour even much smaller promises. That is not a solid foundation.
Adaptation Indicators: Useful, But Not Yet Stable: Another technical but important outcome relates to the Global Goal on Adaptation, the Paris Agreement’s attempt to set a common direction for adaptation efforts. To know whether we are making progress, we need indicators – agreed ways of measuring what is happening on the ground.
After two years of work by experts, COP30 adopted 59 indicators covering water, food, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, livelihoods and policy frameworks, with cross-cutting lenses for gender, human rights, technology, finance and capacities.
For African countries, this can be helpful. We need data to show where we are investing, where gaps remain and why we require more support. With clear indicators, it is easier to argue for targeted finance and to track whether projects are actually reducing risks.
However, the way these indicators were finalized, and the lack of means for implementation raised concerns. Some were significantly altered by negotiators in the last days. Others are vague or hard to measure. Several countries, including from the Global South, voiced objections in the closing plenary.
The Presidency promised that unresolved issues would be revisited at the mid-year climate talks in Bonn in 2026, and that a “Belém–Addis Vision” process will further refine the framework up to COP32 in Ethiopia.
That is both a chance and a frustration. It means the framework is still evolving, and Africa can still shape it. But it also means an important tool remains half-finished at a time when we urgently need stable yardsticks.
Just Transition: A New Mechanism in Search of Means
When you take a step back and consider Africa’s future, one concept repeatedly arises: just transition. We must transition from fossil fuels and promote clean energy, ensuring that we do so in a manner that increases accessibility, safeguards workers, and encourages development.
COP30 established the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM), a new institutional framework within the UN climate system to manage and assist just transition initiatives. The intention is to exchange experiences, allocate resources, offer technical support, and monitor the actions of countries.
This is important for Africa. Over 600 million individuals on our continent still don’t have access to electricity. Several of our economies are significantly dependent on oil and gas income. A just transition for us is not about shutting things down overnight; it is about diversifying economies, retraining workers, building new clean industries and ensuring no one is left behind.
The BAM gives us a place to bring these issues together. But its impact will depend entirely on what comes next. Without serious funding, technology transfer and political backing, it risks becoming a talking shop. A particularly sensitive point for Africa was the interaction between climate policy and trade. Many African countries worry about measures such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which could penalise exports even when we are trying to develop low-carbon industries. African negotiators wanted these concerns reflected in the just transition outcome. All references to trade were removed in the final text. That battle is far from over.
Fossil Fuels: The Largest Failure: On mitigation – cutting emissions at the source – COP30 delivered the most painful disappointment.
As the host, Brazil suggested a plan for gradually eliminating fossil fuels, reinforcing the COP28 appeal to “move away from fossil fuels.” Over 80 nations backed this. African countries, facing the repercussions of emissions they had no role in producing, viewed it as a crucial issue for their survival.
Ultimately, oil-producing countries effectively prevented any mention of a phase-out or a definitive timeline. The ultimate choice merely echoes previous wording in ambiguous terms. No timelines. No firm promises.
This is not a minor point. If the world keeps increasing fossil fuel production, no level of adaptation finance will suffice to safeguard our communities. If fossil fuels are not gradually reduced, temperatures will continue to rise, and the challenges we are currently facing will worsen.
Brazil initiated two voluntary programs – a Global Implementation Accelerator and the « Belém Mission to 1.5°C » – designed to quicken actionable efforts and elevate ambition. These might be beneficial. However, they cannot substitute for the transparency and responsibility of a agreed-upon choice regarding the gradual abandonment of fossil fuels.
Forests, Oceans, and Nature: Innovation and Lost Opportunities: One might anticipate that a COP convened near the Amazon would yield a significant agreement on forests. The truth was less grand.
The most encouraging result was the initiation of the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, aimed at offering sustained funding to nations that conserve their forests. It has garnered commitments of several billion dollars and allocates at least 20% of its resources for Indigenous peoples and local communities.
For countries in Africa’s forests, particularly in the Congo Basin, Guinea with the forest, this holds potential for significant change. It provides a more consistent flow of resources compared to the project-by-project method that has prevailed in forest finance.
Nonetheless, nations could not reach consensus on a worldwide plan to stop deforestation by 2030. The political significance of being in the Amazon could not counteract the economic forces leading to forest destruction.
Regarding oceans and wider environmental concerns, several initiatives were initiated or enhanced – focusing on wildfires, bioeconomy, and incorporating the ocean into national climate strategies. These are appreciated, particularly by African coastal and island nations, yet they largely remain optional.
Carbon Markets: Opportunities and Challenges: COP30 concentrated on technical adjustments related to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement in carbon markets, such as moving leftover funds from the old Kyoto mechanisms to the updated system.
Numerous African nations have maintained their stance as engaged participants in upcoming carbon markets. If executed properly, these markets have the potential to generate substantial funding for restoration, renewable energy, and conservation efforts, while also creating employment opportunities and enhancing local economies
Done badly, they could undermine land rights, marginalize communities and allow rich countries to keep emitting while “offsetting” their pollution with cheap credits from the Global South.
African negotiators have pushed for clear safeguards: fair benefit-sharing, robust community consultation, strong environmental integrity and transparent accounting. The technical work is progressing, but much depends on how projects are designed and governed at national level. Vigilance is essential.
Technology and Capacity: The Absent Foundations: A consistent theme across all African initiatives is that technology transfer and capacity building continue to be the most fragile supports of the climate framework.
We require cost-effective access to clean energy solutions, climate-resilient farming, effective irrigation, information and alert systems, as well as sustainable industrial methods. We also require the skills, institutions, and human resources to utilize them efficiently
COP30 repeated earlier promises on technology transfer and capacity building. It did not unlock a breakthrough on intellectual property, pricing or access. Nor did it provide the kind of long-term support needed to build strong climate institutions in African countries.
In practice, this leaves many of our states negotiating complex climate deals and managing intricate finance instruments with far fewer resources than their counterparts. That imbalance shapes outcomes, often in ways that are invisible to the public.
Shifting the African Narrative
One encouraging trend at COP30 was the way African voices framed the continent’s role. We are no longer willing to be described only as victims. Yes, we are vulnerable. But we are also central to the solution. Africa has extraordinary solar and wind potential, huge hydropower opportunities, critical minerals needed for the global energy transition, vast carbon sinks in forests and savannahs, and the world’s youngest population. Our leaders increasingly link climate action to industrialisation, jobs and inclusive growth.
This shift matters. It changes our negotiating stance. We are not simply asking for help to “cope” with climate change. We are demanding investment in African-led solutions – in green industries on our soil, in value addition to our minerals, in regional supply chains powered by renewable energy.
Did COP30 Meet Expectations for Africa?
The truthful response is: partially.
On the bright side, we obtained:
a political pledge to increase adaptation funding threefold by 2035, acknowledging the significance of grants;
a tangible action to implement the Loss and Damage Fund, with a definitive start date for disbursements;
an updated Belém Action Mechanism for equitable transition;
implementation of adaptation metrics to start tracking advancements;
a groundbreaking forest financing initiative that might aid countries in the Congo Basin;
and assurance that Ethiopia will be the venue for COP32, returning the conference to African land and African guidance.
These are not insignificant accomplishments, particularly in a challenging geopolitical environment. They provide us with tools to use.
However, the deficiencies are significant:
no plan to eliminate fossil fuel usage;
a Loss and Damage Fund that is nearly depleted in relation to the requirements;
ongoing challenges in technology transfer and capabilities;
voluntary actions where enforceable obligations were required;
and lost opportunities regarding deforestation and trade fairness.
One of the most concerning trends is the consistent discrepancy between commitments and actual results. We have witnessed financial goals being declared and subsequently overlooked in silence before. The Belém commitments should not turn into yet another part of that narrative.
The Pathway from Belém to Addis
With COP31 in Turkey and COP32 in Addis Ababa on the horizon, Africa has tasks to accomplish. We need to preserve and strengthen our solidarity as a negotiation group, keep pressing for responsibility regarding finance and execution, enhance our own abilities, and interact outside the UNFCCC – in trade, debt, investment, and regional collaboration.
We should continue to focus on African narratives: from farmers trying out new climate-adaptive techniques, to young people creating innovations in clean technology, to communities safeguarding forests and mangroves.
These aren’t mere side notes. They represent the essence of a fair, sustainable future.
COP30 did not achieve the significant progress many of us anticipated. However, it wasn’t a breakdown either. The climate system is still active. Multilateralism is facing challenges, yet it continues to operate. The choices made in Belém, when carried out sincerely and completely, have the potential to save lives and aid Africa’s shift toward a sustainable, low-carbon future.
Execution, nonetheless, is crucial. A paragraph in a decision document does not halt a flood, reconstruct a bridge or supply power to a village. Cash, innovation, and determination are sufficient.
Africa will be observing, coordinating, and advocating – following Belém, in the halls of upcoming COPs, and in every other venue where climate choices are determined. We continue to stand in this struggle: for our community, for our right to progress, and for a sustainable planet for all.
And we have no plans to retreat.
The views expressed here reflect my experience as an African climate negotiator and don’t necessarily represent any single African nation’s or negotiating bloc’s official position.
( By an African Climate Negotiator Alpha Oumar Kaloga)
