COP30's aftermath: Failure, confusion and hope
COP30 was framed as a turning point for real climate action but the reality fell far short of that promise. While some gains were made, COP30 was ultimately marked by exclusion, missed opportunities and a troubling step back from commitments to phase out fossil fuels. CRIN unpacks what COP30 delivered and what it failed to achieve from a children’s rights perspective.
COP30 in general
Across decisions adopted at COP30 - including those on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), the Global Goal on Adaptation, the Mutirao decision and the Mitigation Work Programme - children are mentioned more frequently. While this reflects some progress in visibility, these references remain limited and largely symbolic, offering little in the way of concrete protection or accountability.
More striking is what is missing altogether. Fossil fuels do not appear in a single COP30 decision, marking a clear step backwards from COP28, particularly at a COP at which just transition was a central theme. This silence signals an ongoing reluctance by States to confront the primary cause of the climate crisis, despite overwhelming scientific evidence and increasing legal clarity. While Colombia’s announcement of a first International Conference on the Phase-Out of Fossil Fuels in 2026 is a welcome political signal, addressing the root causes of the climate crisis cannot be left to voluntary initiatives. It must be embedded at the heart of the Paris Agreement’s consensus framework. Without addressing the need to phase out fossil fuels, commitments to climate action and to children’s rights remain fundamentally hollow.
The consequences of this failure are already borne by children worldwide. Air pollution from fossil fuel combustion poses a severe threat to children’s health, contributing to nearly 2,000 deaths of children under the age of five every day and exposing more than 90 per cent of the world’s children to toxic air. Beyond health impacts, millions of children remain trapped in hazardous and polluting industries within fossil fuel-dependent economies. Protecting children’s rights to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment requires an unequivocal commitment to phasing out fossil fuels. Anything less entrenches avoidable harm and deepening inequality.
Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP)
After failing to reach an agreement at COP29, States arrived in Belém under pressure to conclude the JTWP. Negotiations resumed from a fully bracketed text (a text fully open for negotiations) in Bonn, reopening debates on core issues: the inclusion of strong human rights language and the JTWP’s acknowledgement of the need to transition away from fossil fuels.
COP30 ultimately delivered an outcome, but not without significant trade-offs. While the JTWP was adopted and contains notable gains, these came through concessions that risk hollowing out the substance of a ‘just transition’, particularly for children and future generations.
On the positive side, the final text includes the strongest rights-based language to date. For the first time in COP history, detailed references to human rights - including children’s rights and intergenerational equity - appear in the operative section of a decision. This is a meaningful step forward. In this sense, the JTWP affirms an essential truth: without human rights, there can be no just transition.
However, this progress is undermined by a critical omission: the JTWP avoids any reference to phasing out fossil fuels. This omission reflects the influence of petrostates, which advocated for the continued fossil fuel production and use under the banner of national priorities. In doing so, States attempt to sell a ‘just transition’ that leaves the root cause of the crisis intact, turning the concept into a contradiction rather than a solution.
This omission is particularly troubling in light of the International Court of Justice’s recent Advisory Opinion, which clarified that the production, consumption, licensing and subsidisation of fossil fuels may constitute internationally wrongful acts (para. 427-8). States have a legal duty to protect the climate system from significant harm caused by anthropogenic (originating from human activity) greenhouse gas emissions. With the United States withdrawing from the UNFCCC, it is now more than ever imperative that States uphold and strengthen international law regarding their human rights and climate obligations.
Implementation mechanism
The JTWP establishes an implementation mechanism, lending it a degree of credibility and creating space to advance human rights, including children’s rights, in practice. Yet without addressing fossil fuels, this implementation mechanism risks becoming directionless. Scientific pathways to limiting warming to 1.5°C are incompatible with continued fossil fuel expansion, and failure to act accordingly may place States at risk of breaching their legal obligations.
For the JTWP to deliver justice, transitioning away from fossil fuels must become central to its implementation. Anything less falls short of what science, law, and children’s rights demand.
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
The 2025 NDC Synthesis Report shows a growing recognition of children’s rights in the recently submitted NDCs. Fifty-two per cent of submitted NDCs acknowledge the disproportionate impacts of climate change on children, and 88 per cent reference children’s participation in their development.
While this increased visibility is welcome, it does not alter the broader reality: NDCs remain far off track from limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Improved language and participation cannot compensate for insufficient ambition. This gap is particularly concerning given the ICJ’s clarification that preparing and updating NDCs is a legal obligation requiring the highest possible ambition, not entirely within a country's discretion (para. 242-245). From a children’s rights perspective, failure to meet this standard risks foreseeable and preventable harm.
Need for UNFCCC reform
COP30 also laid bare deep structural problems within the UN climate process itself. The exclusion of some Indigenous Peoples of Brazil, the restriction to their freedom of expression and the militarised response to their protests raised serious questions about whose voices this process prioritises. Far too often, those most affected by the climate crisis, Indigenous communities, children and other marginalised groups, are sidelined. At the same time, States unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue dominate the negotiations.
Barriers such as visa restrictions, opaque procedures and the requirement for consensus continue to yield diluted outcomes. These dynamics make it increasingly difficult to deliver decisions that reflect scientific realities, align with legal obligations and account for the lived experiences of impacted communities.
If COP outcomes are to deliver real climate action that protects children’s rights and the rights of future generations, the process itself must change. A system that is exclusionary, elitist, and resistant to accountability cannot produce just or effective solutions to the climate crisis. That is why CRIN signed on to the call for an urgent reform of the UN climate talks. Read more on this call here.
Where do we go from here?
COP30 leaves us with a stark conclusion: while children’s rights are increasingly acknowledged in climate language, they remain insufficiently protected in climate action.
Strong references to human rights, participation and intergenerational equity cannot compensate for the persistent refusal to confront the root cause of the crisis - fossil fuels - nor for climate plans that fall short of what science and international law require. For children and future generations, this gap between recognition and reality carries real and lasting consequences.
Moving forward, States must translate rights-based commitments into ambitious, legally compliant action, align NDCs with the 1.5°C limit and reform a climate process that continues to exclude those most affected. A truly just transition and a credible climate response will be possible only when human rights and children’s rights are treated not as aspirational language but as binding obligations that shape both outcomes and the process itself.