In her exclusive interview with AZERTAC, Lorena Zenteno Villa, senior researcher at the University of Miami School of Law and a renowned expert in international climate law, outlined the significance of decisions adopted during the COP30 Conference in Belém, Brazil.

The expert also shared her thoughts on what joint projects could be implemented between Azerbaijan and the U.S. in climate action and green energy.

- How successful was COP30 and what important decisions were adopted?

- COP30 concluded with outcomes reflecting both substantive progress and persistent challenges in global climate governance. The conference advanced critical mechanisms for adaptation and just transition while falling short on fossil fuel commitments and adequate public finance.

Principal Outcomes:

The conference adopted the Belém Package, comprising 29 decisions approved by all 195 Parties. The Brazilian Presidency characterized this as marking "the beginning of a decade of turning the game," emphasizing a transition from negotiation to implementation.

Key decisions include:

Tripling adaptation finance by 2035, placing explicit responsibility on developed countries to substantially increase support for developing nations confronting intensifying climate impacts addressing the fundamental inequity that those least responsible for emissions face disproportionate consequences.

The Belém Mechanism for Just Global Transition establishes an institutional framework ensuring climate action integrates equity, inclusion, and social protection, recognizing that effective transitions require supporting workers and communities dependent on fossil fuel industries.

59 voluntary indicators under the Global Goal on Adaptation provide measurable benchmarks across water, food security, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, and livelihoods, offering concrete tools for assessing progress beyond aspirational commitments.

The Global Implementation Accelerator prioritizes high-impact interventions including methane emission reduction and nature-based solutions, while identifying transformative opportunities in renewable energy and financial system reform.

The conference demonstrated notable mobilization: 122 countries submitted new or updated NDCs, and over 120 action plans were announced across critical sectors.

Identified Gaps:

However, leading international environmental organizations, including CIEL, World Resources Institute, Climate Action Network International, Greenpeace, and Global Witness, identified significant shortcomings:

Absence of binding fossil fuel commitments. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that limiting warming to 1.5°C requires rapid transition away from coal, oil, and gas, the final package lacks explicit language on phasing out fossil fuels.

Insufficient public climate finance. While tripling adaptation finance represents progress, the overall magnitude remains substantially below identified requirements. The predominance of loan-based rather than grant-based financing raises concerns about debt sustainability for vulnerable economies.

The implementation gap highlighted by Small Island States is particularly significant from a legal perspective. These nations emphasized the divergence between COP30's political commitments and legal obligations recently articulated by the International Court of Justice, raising important questions about compliance with international law.

Assessment:

COP30 advances institutional architecture for climate action while deferring action on the most politically contentious issues. The new mechanisms, if adequately resourced, could accelerate progress. However, the absence of robust fossil fuel commitments and inadequate public finance represent critical vulnerabilities, particularly given the temporal urgency emphasized by climate science.

For vulnerable nations, COP30's success will be measured not by frameworks established, but by whether these deliver tangible emissions reductions, adequate financing, and meaningful protection. The coming years will reveal whether "the decade of implementation" translates into transformative action at the scale and pace the climate emergency demands.

- What kinds of joint cooperation or projects can the United States and Azerbaijan undertake in combating climate change and in the field of green energy?

- There are several practical areas where the United States and Azerbaijan can strengthen cooperation on climate action and green energy. Most of these opportunities are technical in nature and remain stable regardless of political cycles.

First, both countries can collaborate on clean-energy technologies and energy-efficiency solutions.

U.S. research institutions and private companies have broad experience in areas such as solar and wind engineering, battery storage, and modern grid systems. Joint projects or technology partnerships could support Azerbaijan’s efforts to diversify its energy mix and expand low-carbon infrastructure.

Second, methane reduction offers a clear and mutually beneficial opportunity.

Improving detection, monitoring, and reduction of methane emissions in the oil and gas sector is one of the most effective ways to lower greenhouse gases. This type of cooperation is technical and industry-focused, and it aligns with global best practices in energy management.

Third, scientific and academic cooperation can continue to grow.

Universities and research centers in both countries can collaborate on climate modeling, water management, drought resilience, and innovation in clean technologies. These partnerships contribute to long-term resilience and knowledge exchange.

Finally, there is potential for cooperation in emerging green-energy sectors, including hydrogen, offshore wind, and renewable project development.

Azerbaijan’s geographic position and resources make it an important regional energy actor, and technical collaboration can support feasibility studies, pilot projects, and investment planning.

Overall, cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan can progress through technology, science, and innovation, areas that are practical, non-political, and mutually advantageous.