COP30: What the Outcomes Mean for Associations, Businesses and Society - A CAFA Perspective

COP30 closed under immense expectation and even greater pressure. For CAFA, the summit’s final outcome represents a powerful reminder: we are now in the decisive decade, and while multilateral progress still matters, real leadership must increasingly come from business, industry, associations, workers, communities and civil society.

We have curated our COP30 insights and summarised the key takeaways through CAFA’s lens – grounded in the belief that associations, businesses and industry hold real power to accelerate climate action where political consensus continues to fall short.

Major discussions throughout the week addressed adaptation and Loss and Damage finance, curbing deforestation, and most importantly the phase-out of fossil fuels – the latter imposed itself on an agenda that hadn’t made time for it. However, as negotiations entered the last day of COP on Friday, these key themes became subject of conflicts and their mentions in the final Mutirão Text was undermined.

Today, opinions on the outcomes of COP30 are conflicted and divided: on the one hand, major progress was made on climate action implementation, but on the other hand, the elephant in the room has not be tackled: any mention of fossil fuels and deforestation has been omitted from the final COP30 text.

However, is this outcome that surprising given that the initial COP30 discussion agenda didn’t mention fossil fuels either? Equally, is it really that surprising by the lack of an agreement on a roadmap for stopping deforestation, given that the biggest fund for protecting forests – the Tropical Forest Forever Fund – is happening outside of the UN process?

Implementation Progress: What’s Useful to Know for Business and Associations

COP30 happened in a context of immense pressure from accelerating anthropogenic emissions and global warming temporarily exceeding the 1.5°C limit, in the midst of natural disasters and late NDCs. Natural disasters exacerbated by climate change have hit Los Angeles, the Philippines, and Madagascar throughout the year. The first six months alone have resulted in an estimated $101 billion cost from global climate disasters.

Moreover, only 13 of the 195 parties submitted their NDCs on time, even though by the end of COP, that number had risen to 118. Not only that, the collective impact of all current NDCs places the world on a 2.6°C warming trajectory, falling very short of the 1.5°C limit. Additionally, current policies are failing to meet NDCs, placing warming on an even higher trajectory of up to 2.8°C, reinforcing the need for COP30 to be the moment negotiations become implementation.

Moreover, the geopolitical context further challenged the COP Presidency: the US did not send any delegations and China remained particularly quiet. This casted a shadow over negotiations and provided ammunition to petrostates to slow down climate action. Moreover, 1600 fossil fuel lobbyists were present in Belém, which represents 1 in 25 of the delegates registered. These influences have shown to slow down climate action progress and disrupt crucial negotiations.

The first ever Global Stocktake which concluded at COP28 became the compass for COP30 negotiations and discussions. The scientific evidence provided emphasised the need for rapid emissions reduction, especially from G20 countries.

Roadmap to Phase Out Fossil Fuels

While COP30 has achieved many things, the summit’s ultimate failure was its inability to include a commitment to phase out fossil fuels and end deforestation within its Mutirão text, despite a coalition of 80 developed and developing countries pushing for it. This critical omission overshadows all other progress, as fossil fuels are the biggest contributor to climate change.

Although fossil fuels had not been part of the initial COP30 agenda – a mistake on the Presidency’s part – expectations were that this COP would finally agree on working on a phase-out roadmap. The tension peaked during the final negotiations over the Mutirão text – the final agreements of COP30 – where global divisions were clear, and arguably at a record high. A late-night draft was presented between Thursday and Friday, and was met with immediate resistance from global leaders, delegates, and organisations such as the UK, Columbia, small island states, We Mean Business Coalition, and many more. The text omitted any language on fossil fuels and their much-needed phase out – a result of 100 nations driven by a powerful bloc of petrostates including Saudia Arabia and Russia threatening to collapse the talks if language on fossil fuel phase-out was included. The Presidency, therefore, decided a weak deal was better than no deal.

This points to the structural issues within the decision-making process of the UN which operates by a consensus which gives the right to any single Party a veto right. While this system certainly has its merits, it also has given the power to Saudia Arabia to vote against the mention of fossil fuels within the final COP30 text.

Saudia Arabia and like-minded states opposed the mention of fossil fuels because they believed that a mandated timeline was a violation of their national sovereignty to transition at their own pace. There are several issues with this argument. Firstly, climate change affects all countries in the world with the safety of millions on the line – and a transition away from its main cause shouldn’t be halted for the few who benefit from it. Secondly, the pace for phasing out fossil fuels should be dictated by the Paris Agreement goals to limit global warming to 1.5°C or well below 2°C – an agreement that Saudi Arabia and other petrostates have signed and ratified. Additionally, the principle of a roadmap shouldn’t be the issue for petrostates (at least as long as they remain a signatory of the Paris Agreement) – rather, they should negotiate for a roadmap that’s fair and just, not oppose a roadmap in principle. However, it’s important to put this argument in perspective: while a consensus can be found on a timeline, it does not force countries to meet the agreement as unfortunately illustrated by NDCs, with 98 parties submitting their plans after the deadline. Last but not least, a roadmap on phasing out fossil fuels would not force their hand. It would, however, accelerate global progress and give the necessary market signals to develop renewables.

However, it is important to note that most parties opposed the development of a roadmap. Developing nations argued that they lack the necessary support from rich nations. As Lidy Nacpil of the Asian Peoples’ Movement for Debt and Development pointed out, the advocacy of the Global North – particularly the EU – could be seen as hypocrisy. While pushing for a fossil fuel phase-out roadmap, rich and developed nations remain the world’s largest consumers of fossil fuels and the primary pushers for new fossil fuel projects in the developing world. For instance, while the EU represents 5.5% of the global population, it represents 9% of global emissions. Similarly, the US represents just above 4% of the population but emits 11% of all GHGs (measured per capita however, petrostates have higher emissions). They have also failed to provide the needed financial and technical support to developing and vulnerable countries.

Therefore, the resistance from developing countries becomes more understandable: their economies and growth are fundamentally dependent on access to fossil fuels, but LMICs in particular lack the financial and technological support needed to manage a transition. For the Global North to demand increased ambition without providing the promised means to achieve it is, as Asad Rehman of Friends of the Earth stated, to “demand everything but provide nothing”.

A key point raised during the final media briefing by E3G, a climate think tank, is that a just green transition is a package deal. A successful roadmap requires compromise which ensures all parties get what they need, not necessarily what they want.

Although, it is disheartening to see petrostates vetoing a much-needed phase-out of fossil fuels, the fundamental failure happened much earlier when the agenda omitted the mention of fossil fuels and rich countries failed – and keep failing – to provide the necessary financial support for a just and equitable transition.

From CAFA’s perspective, the omission:

• Undermines long-term investment signals for industries urgently needing clarity.

• Delays certainty for workers in high-carbon sectors who require planned, well-funded transition pathways, not political stalemates.

• Fails frontline communities who already face escalating climate impacts.

• Places greater responsibility onto business networks, sector bodies, and associations to drive coordinated, sector-level action.

The Rise of Parallel Action: As the UN Process Stalled, Others Stepped In

The most significant, future-shaping outcome happened outside the formal COP process: A new, first ever International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels.

The Conference will be co-hosted by The Netherlands and Colombia, scheduled for April 2026, and grounded in a coalition of countries – including major fossil producers -that want a managed global shift away from oil, gas and coal.

Moreover, to overcome the diplomatic challenge posed by the division of nations over fossil fuels, COP President André Corrêa do Lago announced that Brazil would lead the development of a voluntary roadmap outside of the official UN process. The roadmap, instead of being included in the adopted text, will be developed under this presidency as a way to work around Saudia Arabia’s effort to block it, and will be backed by 90 countries. It will be further discussed during the Conference in April.

From CAFA’s perspective, this shift signals a new landscape and reinforces where ambitious coalitions – not consensus-based forums – become the engines of global climate action.

For businesses and associations, these new spaces offer:

• More stable long-term signals

• Opportunities to have a voice and co-design transition frameworks for your members

• Clearer alignment with science-based pathways

• Possible funding instruments.

  
  

Associations and industry groups have an essential role in harmonising expectations, providing technical guidance, and accelerating pre-competitive climate solutions across sectors.

Roadmap on ending Deforestation

One of the highly expected outcomes of COP30 was the inclusion of a roadmap to end deforestation. This expectation was strengthened by the summit’s location in the Amazon, which placed forests and ecosystems at the heart of the agenda. Momentum seemed to build with the presence of the largest Indigenous delegation in COP history and when the Brazilian government recognised 10 new Indigenous territories. Given this context, the omission of a deforestation roadmap from the Mutirão text came as a strong disappointment.

The deforestation roadmap had been closely tied to the fossil fuel roadmap which appears as both a diplomatic mistake and perhaps a sabotage by the Brazilian foreign ministry – focused on protecting their oil exports.

However, do Lago has pledged to developing a “Forest and Climate Roadmap” – similarly to the “Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels Roadmap” – which will both be addressed at the March Summit.

Key Achievements

Although the omission of fossil fuels and deforestation in the final text of COP30 is a major failure, discussions and negotiations have resulted in some key achievements.

Do Lago set out for this summit to be the COP of Implementation by focusing on translating pledges into concrete, funded actions. To guide discussions, he adopted the spirit of Mutirão – a Brazilian term to describe the collective effort toward a collective good. The summit concluded with 195 Parties signing the Belém Package which includes 29 consensus agreements on just transition, adaptation finance, trade, gender, and technology. Do Lago has also ensured this COP would accelerate implementation progress through the creation of 59 voluntary, non-prescriptive indicators to help track national climate goals across sectors such as water, food, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, and livelihoods.

Tipping points:

National leaders, non-governmental organisations, scientists, and financial institutions all acknowledged the threat that we are facing: 1.5°C was trespassed in 2024 and the overshoot is expected by the 2030s. Tipping points such as coral reefs, forests, and ice sheets were discussed as global warming accelerators and breaching them would mean that climate change would become virtually impossible to manage. This is the first time global leaders acknowledged these threats explicitly which set the tone for the subsequent negotiations.

Phasing out fossil fuels:

A group of 90 developed, developing, and petrostates countries urged for the phase-out of fossil fuel: this group shows momentum is growing, albeit not quickly enough.

Implementation mechanisms:

• The Global Implementation Accelerator, a collaborative and voluntary initiative, to support countries in implementing their NDCs and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).

• And the Belém Mission to 1.5 to improve ambition and international cooperation across mitigation, adaptation, and investment.

Financial Initiatives:

• The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) was operationalised, issuing its first $250 million call for proposals under the Barbados Implementation Modalities (BIM).

• The Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T was introduced as a global and political framework to scale up public and private climate finance to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035. It focuses on both adaptation and loss and damage as its key priorities.

• Under the Roadmap’s umbrella, the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) was implemented to increase the minimum of $300 billion per year by 2035 to $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 to developing countries.

• The Fostering Investible National Planning and Implementation (FINI) for adaptation and resilience initiative was launched to transform National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) into investable, finance-ready projects that attract private and public funding.

Adaptation, Loss and Damage

However, when it comes to financial mechanisms, opinions are once again conflicted. Firstly, the NCQG goal requires developed countries to mobilise a minimum of $300 billion per year by 2035 and the Baku to Belém Roadmap aims to mobilise $1.3 trillion per year. The Mutirão text formally “takes note” of this roadmap and recognises the urgent need to triple adaptation finance. This sends an important political signal to close the finance gap and maintain support. However, the deadline has been pushed from 2030 to 2035 despite developing countries’ push for improved financial support.

In terms of the Adaptation (handling future climate changes) and Loss and Damage (current and unavoidable impacts) Finance, there have been clear initiatives to move funds from discussion into implementation. The Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) was operationalised - however, the total funding pledged to L&D remains insufficient with $582.84 million compared to the estimated need for $400 billion in 2025 alone for developing countries. Similarly, the Adaptation Fund fails to meet its self-determined goal for the second operationalised year.

Ecosystems and Nature

In terms of protecting the resilience of our ecosystems, these following achievements are worth celebrating:

• The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) was operationalised as a public and private mechanism for protecting standing forest through lasting finance.

• 17 countries decided to join the Blue NDC Challenge which promotes the inclusion of ocean-based solutions in their national climate plans.

• In the same scope, the network from the newly launched One Ocean Partnership aims to mobilise a minimum of $20 billion of investment to accelerate the Blue Regenerative Economy by 2030.

Concluding Remarks

CO30 was under immense pressure to foster collaboration in an increasingly divided world, and this was especially felt during the last negotiations over what was to be included in the Mutirão Text. Two opposing groups nearly made the entire COP30 negotiations fall through, with 100 countries on one side rejecting the mention of fossil fuels in the final text, and a group of 80 countries on the other, urging for the acceleration of the phase out of fossil fuels. However, do Lago managed to find consensus on a final package proposing 29 decisions.

Although progress has been made in tackling the ambition and implementation gaps, it once again, feels like not enough has been agreed on. One would expect that by the 30^th session, leaders and presidencies would have learned from past failures. It is due time to finally address the long-anticipated agenda: a fossil fuel phase-out, financial support from rich nations to the developing world, and a collective commitment to accelerate science-based solutions.

Not finding consensus on the most important matter might seem disheartening but if there is one thing to remember from this COP is that if the UN process won’t accelerate climate action, then those who are willing to act will move forward anyway. The science is clear: climate change is happening now. Therefore, the responsibility falls to every country, organisation, and individual to take accountability for their environmental impact and act accordingly.

A CAFA Call to Action: What Associations Should Do Next

If COP30 has taught us anything, it is this: Associations, networks and member-based bodies are now among the most powerful levers for global climate action.

CAFA sees six immediate priorities:

1. Mobilise members behind voluntary transition roadmaps

Lead and support sectors to adopt science-aligned pathways even in the absence of binding global mandates.

2. Build capacity for implementation

Turn pledges into measurable, funded action across entire sectors, supported by shared tools, training and peer learning. Associations are uniquely placed to lead on this with their members.

3. Advocate for fair, well-funded just transitions

Ensure workers, SMEs and vulnerable communities are not left behind.

4. Champion Science-Aligned Policy Across All Sectors

Associations must take a proactive role in ensuring their policy positions, guidance to members, and external advocacy are aligned with the latest climate science. Science-based alignment is no longer optional – it is essential to maintaining credibility, safeguarding sector resilience, and ensuring industries transition at the pace required to remain within the 1.5°C pathway. If you’re unsure how to do this, join CAFA and take part in our Climate Policy working group.

5. Equip businesses to navigate finance

Help your members and wider community to know where to look for climate finance, resilience investment, and adaptation funding mechanisms. Speak to CAFA if you’re unsure what this looks like for your sector.

6. Strengthen nature-positive leadership

Support member industries and professions in aligning with deforestation-free, nature and biodiversity practices ahead of regulatory shifts. This is complex; however, interconnectedness is key for full impact and decarbonisation.

Final Reflection

COP30 did not deliver the fossil fuel phase-out or deforestation roadmap the world urgently needs. But it did deliver something equally important: clarity.

Clarity that:

• We cannot rely solely on the UN process for decisive action.

• Ambition will come from those willing to act, not those slowing negotiations.

• Associations, businesses and civil society must lead where politics stalls.

For CAFA, the message is unambiguous: the responsibility now falls to every sector, every organisation, and every association to accelerate the transition – guided by science, driven by collaboration, and anchored in justice.

If the world is to stay within safe climate limits, we must all become implementers of change, not observers of negotiations.

If your membership organisation requires support CAFA has free guidance and information to guide you. If you're not already a member, join CAFA today.