Glasgow’s economic transformation: traditional foundations and emerging growth sectors

The Savills Blog

Good COP? Bad COP?

COP30 in Belém concluded on 21 November, with discussions continuing into the weekend. The conference came at a pivotal moment, just five years before countries must meet their Paris 2030 climate targets.

Reactions were mixed: some argued the measures fell short, while others acknowledged progress. So, was it a good COP or a bad COP? 


The final text

Forestry featured prominently in the final document, reflecting the host region’s role in carbon storage and climate stability, alongside the recognition of indigenous people as stewards of land and forests. However, a proposed roadmap to end deforestation was excluded, though $6 billion was pledged to a tropical forest fund; progress but widely seen as insufficient. Some argue that the conference raised more questions than answers, particularly on fossil fuels. 

One clear takeaway, however, was the growing emphasis on adaptation. Sadly, the need to adapt acknowledges that mitigation has at least partly failed. Some 200 countries endorsed an eight-page document calling for stronger national emissions targets, focus on adaptation and increased financial support for poorer nations facing worsening heat, storms and drought. The summit also launched its first Climate Health Action Plan, highlighting the intrinsic link between health and climate.

The importance of adaptation

COP30 responded to the adaptation challenge with a call to triple adaptation finance by 2035, supplemented by the Bill Gates Foundation pledging $1.4 billion to help farmers in poorer regions cope with rising temperatures.

Globally, the urgency is clear: 2024 was the hottest year on record and the first when average temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. With this threshold breached, climate impacts are becoming more unpredictable. Adaptation is now critical to prevent places becoming uninhabitable and to build resilience through technology, science and engineering. Unlike mitigation, adaptation is less politically charged, but funding remains a challenge.

What does adaptation mean for real estate?

Extreme weather makes property harder to finance and insure, deters investors and raises operating and occupancy costs. Climate change threatens cash flow, asset value and long-term performance. Properties tracked by the MSCI US Quarterly Property Index have seen insurance costs as a share of income double over the past five years. In regions with elevated exposure to wildfires, hurricanes and floods, insurers are becoming more selective in their underwriting. In some high-risk areas, policy non-renewals have increased, in turn impacting banks’ willingness to lend.

Developers, owners and occupiers who act decisively will benefit from real estate that is resilient to climate change. As adaptation becomes core to investment, cities that build robust infrastructure will make their property more attractive.

Moving forward

Despite limited progress in many areas at COP30 and the resulting dissatisfaction, it is important to recognise the positive strides made. Adaptation is climbing the agenda, and there is growing global recognition of the need to improve real estate resilience. The conference reinforced what we already know, building for a changing climate and embedding resilience is no longer optional it is essential.

 

Further information

Contact Dan Jestico

Recommended articles