Turning Methane Commitments into Action: Priorities for COP30

The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) taking place in Belem, Brasil, offers a pivotal opportunity to move from pledges to practice on methane. By defining sectoral targets, confirming OGMP 2.0 as the global oil and gas standard, and catalysing action in the steel sector, Brazil’s COP presidency can deliver a legacy of practical climate impact—one that cuts warming in this decade and strengthens global credibility on climate action.

Methane at COP

Ever since the Berlin Declaration at the first climate COP, presided over by Angela Merkel in 1995, methane has played second fiddle to the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. As the world continues to fall short of climate goals, it has become increasingly clear that acting on methane is an imperative part of our collective climate agenda. Methane emissions from human activity account for a third of the warming that we will experience over the next two decades. Much of it can be reduced cost-effectively, and without curbing these emissions the agreed climate targets will remain out of reach.

Subsequent COPs have increasingly highlighted the role of methane in climate action, and COP30 is expected to echo this further. General declarations of intent are part of any COP, and while they are useful to set directions and signal agreement, more focused decisions are now called for. Hopefully, these can be delivered over the coming twelve months of the Brazilian COP presidency.

We highlight three such actions.

Defining sector targets for collective action

The sectors that emit methane are very different, and evolving the associated socio-economic systems requires specific approaches. Mitigating emissions from livestock digestion has little in common with cutting leakage from a coal mine. The only common denominator is the gas itself, and to some extent the detection technology.

To take focused action in each of the sectors, the GMP target must be broken down into six sectoral targets: oil&gas, steel, thermal coal, waste, rice and livestock. While the total emissions per sector are relatively well quantified, the quality of the data at local level is often poor. The consequence is that the local baseline is often not well defined. Consequently, targets should be both in percentage reduction and emissions intensity.

Accelerating mitigation in the oil and gas sector

Accurately measured data is a means for mitigation, and not an end. The goal is the mitigation of emissions, not merely to report them. The oil and gas sector is sufficiently homogeneous that a single standard is both efficient and effective. Such a global mitigation standard already exists—it is the UN’s OGMP 2.0— and it already covers almost half of global production, and it is the foundation of methane regulation in several jurisdictions. OGMP 2.0 was developed hand in hand with industry, so it is at the same time practical and ambitious.

A declaration by governments confirming that OGMP 2.0 is the global standard and committing to align their regulations and national companies with it would be a powerful accelerator. No standard is perfect, so such a confirmation could be accompanied by a suggestion on how to make the standard more powerful still.

At COP28 a group of 54 oil and gas companies launched the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter (OGDC), pledging to reduce methane emissions. A concrete advance would be to complete the effort that was started at COP28 by having all of them join OGMP 2.0 (half of them have already joined).

Finally, OGMP 2.0 should be explicitly linked to the sectoral methane target proposed above, creating a clear framework for both action and accountability.

An under-valued opportunity: steel methane

Methane emissions add a quarter to the climate footprint of steel over twenty years and can be mitigated at less than 1% of the price of steel. Mitigating methane is a cost-effective component of the journey to full decarbonization of steel.

The technical solutions exist and have been coalesced into a methane program together with companies and NGOs: the UN’s Steel Methane Program. What is now required is a catalytic coalition of companies and governments to implement it.

A relatively small number of countries account for the majority of global steel and metallurgical coal production. Aligning them around a Steel Methane Program has the concrete opportunity for taking out a gigaton CO₂eq a year over the next two decades – a concrete and scalable contribution to global mitigation.

The flame that lit the path to methane action (in memory of Manfredi Caltagirone)

“Chimera, a being of nature not human, but divine, with the head of a lion, the tail of a dragon, and the body of a goat, which breathed fiery and horrible flames.” The Iliad VI.145

In what is likely the first description of gas flaring, Homer in the Iliad describes the flames at Chimera. He appears to realise Chimera’s flames were both wondrous and dangerous. Now located in modern-day Turkey, they combusted the emissions of natural seepage of methane and hydrogen. The first Olympic flames were lit at Chimera.

Thus, methane has long been a source of both hope and fear for millennia. Over the last half century, this fossil gas has brought energy for better livelihoods, while its seepage—no longer natural but industrial—accounts for more than a third of global warming over the next two decades. Yet cutting methane emissions is one of the most cost-effective ways to combat climate change. But as often happens, while it is straightforward to know what to do, how to get this done at a relevant scale and speed is the real challenge.

It was with this challenge in mind that three individuals assembled under a massive tree at UNEP sprawling campus in Nairobi, Kenia. They had been closely involved in an early attempt to tackle the problem through the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership that was launched by the UN Secretary General in 2014. While this was a solid initiative, it was also clear that it would not deliver the outcome required for the climate. Delivering the opportunity to avoid two-tenths of a degree of warming was going to require a new approach. It would take more than an imperfect agreement, but an institutional solution, and a systemic theory of change.

It was clear that data assembled with adequate scientific rigour was imperative. Methane emissions had in the past overwhelmingly been estimated using generic factors from laboratory experiments. While this was more or less adequate to put together an inventory of emissions, it was an approach not fit for real mitigation. An engineer fixing a leak must have data on that specific source, not some global average. Rigorous data and scientific methodology would be at the heart of the new initiative.

Good data alone is not enough. For data to drive action, people must care about it, especially those with the agency to act. Central to the new theory of change was the idea that those who could take action would also need to be involved in the data collection. This would lead them to have ownership of the data, and as engineers, they would be intrigued to develop solutions. As much as data science, social engineering would need to be key to the solution.

Finally, this vision needed an institution; a sufficiently large skill pool of scientists, data engineers, project managers and systems change experts to become a focal point and provide longevity to the project. This would require resources: one hundred million dollars for the first five years. Brendan Devlin from the European Commission soon joined their efforts, helping mobilise funds and tie the initiative to the vast capabilities of the European Institutions to connect globally. And so, the International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) – housed at UNEP, under the powerful brand of the United Nations.

Roland Kupers would continue to serve as the architect of IMEO, expanding it to new sectors and evolving its institutional design.

Manfredi Caltagirone became the head of IMEO, leading it with extraordinary warmth, energy and conviction. Under his leadership, IMEO grew to more than 80 staff and an annual budget of $20 million.

Manfredi’s passing in 2025 was a profound loss to the climate community. Yet his vision and humanity endure—in IMEO’s work, in the partnerships he nurtured, and in the many people he inspired. After his death, Giulia Ferrini took up the baton to lead IMEO beyond its fifth anniversary -continuing the mission that Manfredi helped ignite.

As the world approaches COP30, Manfredi’s legacy reminds us that lasting change begins when data meets purpose, and when science is guided by empathy.