A key question before this year’s COP was how the ICJ Advisory Opinion would shape negotiations. States did reaffirm the 1.5°C goal, which the ICJ clarified is the “primary temperature goal”, but the COP30 outcome fell well short of the action the Court said is required of states.

As UN Secretary General, António Guterres said, “I cannot pretend that COP30 has delivered everything that is needed. The gap between where we are and what science demands remains dangerously wide.” 

This article outlines the key outcomes from COP30 for New Zealand: the text of the final agreement, New Zealand’s disappointing position on fossil fuels, its National Statement, and the implications of new ‘commitments’ New Zealand signed with other countries.

The global picture: progress on adaptation and loss and damage, but failure on fossil fuels and forests. 

The main formal decision of COP30 was the Mutirão decision. In it, member countries:

• Agreed to at least triple climate finance for developing countries by 2035. 

• Noted the shrinking global carbon budget, and urged each other to strengthen their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in line with 1.5°C. This is a positive development.

• Launched two new political processes: a “Global Implementation Accelerator” and the “Belém Mission to 1.5”, both aimed at driving faster implementation of NDCs and national adaptation plans.

The Mutirão decision is not a new, legally binding treaty, but a COP/CMA decision. It is a form of “soft law”, but holds significant political authority. 

New Zealand voted in favour of the Mutirão decision, which explicitly encourages parties to strengthen their NDCs “at any time” in light of the 1.5°C temperature goal and the global stocktake. New Zealand’s NDCs have already been criticised for not being consistent with 1.5°C pathways (including in ongoing litigation). The fact that New Zealand voted in favour of the Mutirão decision should now provide an imperative for New Zealand to improve its NDCs so that they are in line with 1.5°C. 

The Mutirão decision, however, fell short in two key ways: countries failed to agree on any concrete action to phase-out, or even meaningfully reduce, fossil fuels. They also fell short of agreeing on any roadmap to protect forests, despite COP30 being held on the edge of the Amazon rainforest and repeated calls for a clear plan to halt deforestation. 

New Zealand’s role and reputation in global negotiations at COP30 

New Zealand is out of step with key partners on fossil fuels and climate disinformation

At COP28 in 2023, New Zealand joined all other Parties in agreeing to the landmark UAE Consensus, which for the first time called for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050.” 

Heading into COP30, a key goal was to work through the implementation of this transition. That did not happen. The final Mutirão text does not mention fossil fuels, and it creates no formal obligation or binding roadmap to phase out, or even meaningfully reduce, fossil fuels.

New Zealand did not join the coalition of around 83 countries calling for a fossil-fuel roadmap, setting us apart from many close partners, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Pacific small island states. 

This position is perhaps unsurprising given the Government’s recent decisions to repeal the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration and explore an LNG import facility. However, a refusal to support even a roadmap sharply calls into question the New Zealand Government’s commitment to the UAE Consensus, and is incredibly disappointing. 

It is also hard to reconcile this position with New Zealand’s international law obligations. Earlier this year, the ICJ noted that a state's failure to take appropriate action to act on emissions, “including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies – may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State”. Supporting work on a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels would have been one concrete way for New Zealand to meet its international obligations. 

New Zealand also chose not to sign the “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change”, which is part of the Global Initiative on Information Integrity on Climate Change, aiming to contribute to investigating, exposing, and dismantling disinformation related to climate change (although the Mutirão decision does mention the need for information integrity). 

New Zealand’s National Statement at COP30

In his speech at COP30, Minister Watts affirmed that “we must keep 1.5°C alive”. 

This aligns with the ICJ’s clarification that 1.5°C is the primary temperature goal under the Paris Agreement, but it does not align with many of the Government’s recent decisions – including the decision to halve New Zealand’s domestic methane target to a level that the Minister himself acknowledged is inconsistent with 1.5°C.  

Also, notably absent from Minister Watt’s speech was any reference to New Zealand’s first 2030 Paris Agreement target (known as NDC1). This is in stark contrast to Minister Watt’s first speech at COP28 two years ago, where he stated that “We are committed to achieving [NDC1], and our 2050 domestic net zero target”. It once again raises the question of whether New Zealand intends to achieve its NDC1 target, in light of the projected 84Mt CO2-e gap for NDC1, and no plan for how New Zealand will close that gap. 

Other agreements involving New Zealand at COP30

Alongside the formal COP30 negotiations, the New Zealand Government used the summit to enter several cooperation initiatives. These include:

• A memorandum of arrangement with Iceland to cooperate on Geothermal Energy Development, committing the two countries to closer technical collaboration and knowledge-sharing on geothermal technology

• A memorandum of cooperation with the United Kingdom to cooperate in accelerating the deployment of clean energy, as well as investment and policy collaboration. 

• A letter of intent with Indonesia on climate change cooperation, where both parties agreed to “strengthen carbon governance” in both countries and develop their carbon markets. 

• Joining the Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets, a voluntary coalition aimed at strengthening co-operation and standard-setting for regulated carbon markets (which in New Zealand is the Emissions Trading Scheme)

These agreements are helpful. However, the real impact of many of these co-operation initiatives is unclear. We do not have the text of all of the instruments yet, but it appears unlikely that they will be legally enforceable. Rather, they are political commitments that New Zealand has chosen to sign, setting expectations rather than creating new legal obligations. The UK memorandum of co-operation, for example, is explicitly not legally binding; instead, it is an “expression of…good faith to engage in collaboration”. 

Looking forward

COPs are a necessary arena for advancing climate action, bringing together nearly every country in the world to negotiate collective progress. The fact that so many states still gathered and reached an outcome is important, particularly in light of the US having pulled out of Paris for a second time. 

However, the Mutirão decision clearly falls short of what the ICJ held is required of states. One reason may be that the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion clarified that decisions made at COPs may create legally binding obligations for the parties (see, for example, paras [184] and [224] of the AO). This may, in turn, have had a chilling effect on negotiations. However, despite the final Mutirão decision falling short, states’ obligations under international law apply regardless of what the outcome does or does not say. 

New Zealand’s various positions at COP raise important credibility questions for our climate response. In Minister Watts’ speech at COP, he reiterated the importance of the 1.5°C goal – yet he is weakening domestic targets at home, reopening fossil fuel exploration, and declining to support international efforts to phase out fossil fuels.