The Real Test of COP30 Is Governance, Not the Size of Its Pledges

The opening week of COP30 has once again turned the global spotlight toward climate finance. Delegations arrived in Belém eager to announce new commitments, restate old promises, or defend the mobilisation of ever more finance as the strongest measure of progress.

The UN Climate Conference (COP30) officially kicked off in Belém, Brazil on 10 November with the aim of translating global pledges into actionable, finance-backed, and equitable climate solutions, with a particular focus on financing, land stewardship, and sustainable development pathways. (Photo: COP30 Brasil Amazônia)

There is little question that adequate funding is essential for climate action, particularly for countries already experiencing deep losses, forced displacement and irreversible environmental damage. Yet, as negotiations move into their second week, the fixation on pledges risks obscuring a more fundamental truth: climate justice cannot be measured in dollars alone, nor can solutions emerge if governance structures and community rights remain unchanged.

It is not difficult to understand why funding dominates these global gatherings. Many of the countries represented here face crushing fiscal constraints. Their climate vulnerabilities stem from histories of underinvestment, marginalisation, and extractive development patterns that have shaped their exposure to risk.

When these states call for new and predictable financial flows, they are not asking for charity. They are seeking restitution for the costs of a crisis they did little to create. However, while the scale of investment required is undeniable, a singular focus on funding has become an unhelpful shorthand for success. It suggests that once the pledges are made, the hardest part is behind us. Experience tells us this is rarely the case.

Financing Without Governance Will Not Deliver Justice

The deeper challenge for countries on the frontlines of climate change lies not only in securing finance but in converting that finance into effective, equitable action. The systems that determine who has the authority to plan, build, protect, own and benefit from land and natural resources remain profoundly uneven.

Without improved governance, weak institutional capacity and unresolved tenure regimes will continue to undermine climate resilience. Many communities lack the formal recognition needed to participate in or benefit from climate finance mechanisms. Others face competing claims over land or operate within administrative structures too fragmented to support large-scale adaptation.

This is why so many civil society organisations, Indigenous networks and local authorities have been urging negotiators to broaden their focus. They argue that the climate crisis is, at its core, a governance crisis. It is about who gets to decide, who gets to benefit and who bears the risk. Finance does not resolve these issues. If anything, it often amplifies existing tensions when distributed through opaque or centralised systems.

A pledge may create the appearance of momentum, but unless communities are empowered with legal certainty, technical support and a meaningful voice in decision-making, the outcomes are unlikely to endure.

Week one of COP30 did offer some hopeful signs. A renewed pledge of USD 1.8 billion for land tenure strengthening, building on earlier commitments designed to protect forests and recognise Indigenous stewardship, reflects a growing acknowledgement that secure rights deliver both environmental and social dividends. Yet this momentum must not be overstated.

For every pledge targeting tenure reform, there remain significant gaps in how funds will be channelled and monitored. Too often, communities that serve as custodians of vital ecosystems are required to navigate lengthy, complex administrative pathways before receiving even the smallest disbursement.

Housing and Tenure Security Cannot Remain Peripheral at COP30

One of the most glaring gaps in the current negotiations is the near absence of a concrete framework for climate-resilient and affordable housing. The urgency of the issue is difficult to dispute. Extreme heat, sea level rise, inland flooding, drought and storm surges are reshaping settlement patterns across continents. In many regions, informal housing has expanded rapidly as populations seek refuge from diminishing livelihoods or degraded land.

Audience members attend the High-Level Ministerial Session ‘The Belém Declaration: Accelerating Green Industrialisation in Pursuit of Global Climate and Development Goals’ at COP30 in Belém, Brazil. (Photo: Rafa Neddermeyer/ COP30 Brasil Amazônia)

As these communities grow, so too do their vulnerabilities. Yet the global climate conversation continues to treat housing as an ancillary issue rather than a priority with direct implications for adaptation, health, economic stability and social cohesion.

Land tenure insecurity is equally overlooked, despite being one of the strongest predictors of climate vulnerability. Families living without documented rights are less likely to invest in resilient structures, less likely to be included in public planning, and more likely to be displaced by both environmental shocks and development pressures.

Where tenure regimes are weak, climate impacts tend to interact with existing inequities, deepening poverty and instability. It is therefore troubling that, even with the increased attention to land governance, housing remains underrepresented in global frameworks. The disconnect between tenure commitments and housing outcomes suggests a need for far more integrated policymaking.

Going forward, I implore negotiators to correct course. Housing must be recognised as a core element of adaptation and resilience. Climate-resilient housing design, financing mechanisms for low-income households, and urban upgrading for informal settlements all require clear political prioritisation. Likewise, tenure security must be linked to housing outcomes in both policy and practice. If these issues remain peripheral, the anticipated gains from increased climate finance will not materialise where they are most needed.

There is also important work to be done in strengthening local implementation capacity. Many local governments, especially in rapidly expanding cities and rural districts, lack the technical expertise to integrate climate resilience into land use planning and housing regulation. International partners and development agencies should therefore frame their support around long-term institutional strengthening, rather than short-term project cycles.

The most effective climate interventions are those rooted in the knowledge, authority and lived experience of local actors, but they require the administrative backbone to sustain them.

Furthermore, donors and multilateral institutions must reflect on how funds are structured. Direct access remains limited for many local entities. Climate finance, in its current form, disproportionately favours large, centralised actors capable of managing complex procedural requirements. This leaves smaller organisations and local authorities dependent on intermediaries, diluting both efficiency and accountability.

If COP30 is to be remembered for more than its financial announcements, it must create clearer pathways for community-centred, rights-based implementation.

Ultimately, the success of COP30 will depend on whether we emerge with a broader understanding of what genuine climate progress entails. Finance is a necessary condition for action, but it is not the measure of justice. Real progress will be seen in whether communities gain secure rights to their land, whether families can access resilient and affordable housing, and whether local institutions are strengthened to lead the work ahead.

These outcomes are not guaranteed by pledges; they depend on governance reforms that shift power closer to the people most affected by climate impacts.

As week two unfolds, I am cautiously hopeful that negotiators will resist the urge to frame success solely in numerical terms. The communities depending on climate action need more than announcements. They need authority, protection, stability and a stake in the future being negotiated in Belém. If COP30 embraces this broader vision, it can set a new precedent for climate justice. If not, the world risks leaving with impressive pledges but without the progress that truly matters.