Alt+C: Main content
:::

To address global climate change challenges, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement continue to advance decisions and actions through the annual Conference of the Parties (COP), forming the core process of global climate governance. In recent years, the focus of climate negotiations has gradually shifted from institutional design to implementation, covering diverse issues such as reduction, adaptation, climate finance, technology transfer, transparency, and loss and damage. Taiwan’s Climate Change Administration (CCA), Ministry of Environment (MOENV) closely monitors the developments of international climate conventions, tracking annual resolutions and emerging topics as essential references for shaping national climate policy, participating in international cooperation, and promoting the net zero transition. This section summarizes the key topics and outcomes of major climate conferences (from COP26 onward) to help the public and policy institutions stay informed of the latest global climate action trends.

COP30 adopted the Belém Political Package, with the core objectives of reinforcing multilateralism and accelerating the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Key elements of the package include the completion of indicators under the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and the provision of an implementation platform for follow-up actions under the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap on Climate Finance, aimed at scaling up climate finance flows to developing countries through both public and private channels. The main elements are summarized below.

The conference concluded with the political resolution packaged under the theme 'Global Mutirão,' incorporating key issues such as climate finance, transparency, the 1.5°C pathway, and unilateral trade measures (UTMs).

Building on the policy cycle following the first Global Stocktake (GST), COP30 reiterated the need for Parties to enhance ambition in the next round of NDCs—using 2035 as a common time frame—by pursuing economy-wide deep emission reductions and prioritizing cost-effective measures such as renewable energy deployment, energy efficiency improvements, and methane mitigation. However, the final decision text did not introduce stronger language on fossil fuels, nor did it establish new collective mitigation targets. As a result, mitigation outcomes were largely assessed as reaffirmations of existing commitments and political signaling. The Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) continues to function primarily as a platform for dialogue and exchange of options, without resulting in binding obligations.

Adaptation constituted one of the most institutionally significant outcomes of COP30. Building on two years of work under the UAE–Belém Work Programme, Parties adopted 59 Belém Adaptation Indicators, establishing—for the first time—a shared global framework and common language for assessing progress on adaptation. At the same time, Parties emphasized that these indicators are voluntary, non-punitive, and nationally driven, and explicitly agreed that they shall neither serve as a precondition for access to public climate finance nor be used for country-to-country comparisons.

Discussions on climate finance at COP30 highlighted the structural divide between developing countries’ calls for the fulfillment of public finance obligations under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement and developed countries’ emphasis on mobilizing private finance. The agreed outcome focused on institutional arrangements: the Mutirão decision reaffirmed that implementation of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) and the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap requires combined public and private financial flows, and established a two-year Climate Finance Work Programme as a political platform for continued negotiations—particularly on the provision of public finance under Article 9.1.

On adaptation finance, developing countries advocated for tripling financial flows by 2030, while developed countries favored a longer timeline and opposed rigid numerical commitments. The final Mutirão decision called for adaptation finance to be increased to at least three times current levels by 2035, without specifying a baseline year or precise amounts. This outcome has been widely assessed as directionally positive.

In contrast to political deadlock in other areas, Article 6 negotiations demonstrated efforts to preserve environmental integrity at the technical level. Under Article 6.4, decisions confirmed that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) will be terminated by the end of 2026 and established conditions for the transition of legacy projects, in order to prevent an influx of low-quality carbon credits. Under Article 6.2, the first round of technical expert reviews revealed inconsistencies in implementation; COP30 responded by facilitating improvement rather than imposing stronger binding requirements, utilizing capacity building and technical support to assist Parties in adjusting their systems and practices to enhance the feasibility of Article 6.2 cooperation.

A notable institutional development at COP30 was the first explicit inclusion of unilateral trade measures (UTMs) in a COP decision text. This formally brought the fairness and trade impacts of measures such as carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs) into the UNFCCC agenda. The decision also established a three-year dialogue process, signaling the elevation of climate–trade tensions from informal discussions to a recognized multilateral forum.

Overall, COP30 reflects a complex dynamic in which institutional development continues to advance while political consensus weakens. On the one hand, progress was achieved through the adoption of GGA indicators, the establishment of mechanisms for just transition, the opening of applications for the Loss and Damage Fund, and the avoidance of regulatory backsliding under Article 6. On the other hand, decision texts remained cautious on core issues such as fossil fuel pathways, finance obligations, and scientific references, underscoring the significant strain placed on global climate governance amid persistent trust deficits.

Toggle Dark/Light Mode Dark Mode
Go Top