Following a dramatic fire and evacuation yesterday afternoon, negotiations restarted and continued into the night, with the COP30 presidency putting out a series of draft texts, including the main “Mutirão” cover decision at 3am local time. What’s most contentious is what’s not in them.
There are no roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels or for halting deforestation, as called for by Brazil’s president and around half of countries.
Because of these omissions and concerns on finance, a group of 29 countries – from Europe, Latin America and small islands – wrote a joint letter to the Brazilian COP presidency expressing their “deep concern” over what they call “a take it or leave it” proposal.
“The legacy of the Presidency in making COP30 a milestone moment will depend on the quality – rather than the speed – of the outcome,” they wrote, adding “a weak text would be remembered as a missed and regrettable opportunity and would undermine the credibility of the process, of the Presidency and of the [climate] regime itself”.
They added that they are “concerned by emerging narratives suggesting that ambitious countries are slowing progress” and “the challenge arises when a package that omits essential elements is presented with the expectation of unconditional acceptance, reflecting only what is acceptable to a limited few”.
They call for the presidency to submit a revised proposal and not ask them to “accept only what the least ambitious are willing to allow”. EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said the text is “no way close to the ambition we need on mitigation” and “we are disappointed with the text currently on the table”.
Greenpeace climate politics expert Tracy Carty also objected to the lack of roadmaps on deforestation and fossil fuels and called for countries to reject the text. She added that it “might as well be blank as it does so little to bridge the 1.5C ambition gap or push countries to accelerate action”.
All governments are scheduled to gather for a plenary meeting around 10 or 11am, where fireworks are likely.
Vague goal to triple adaptation finance included
The draft text does include a “call for efforts” for developed countries to triple adaptation finance compared to 2025 levels by 2030 and “urges” developed countries to “increase the trajectory” of their adaptation finance. But it has no numbers attached to it.
EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said the European Union is “willing to be ambitious on adaptation, but we would like to make clear that any language on finance should squarely be within the commitment reached last year on the [New Collective Quantified Goal on finance agreed at COP29]”.
That goal did not include a specific share for adaptation of the $300 billion a year in public finance promised to developing countries by 2035.
The tripling idea emanated from the Least Developed Countries in Bonn in June and was later picked up by other developing countries. With indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation being negotiated in a separate room, developing countries have argued that deciding on metrics to measure adaptation has little point if developed countries are not going to properly fund it.
“Calls” is the same verb used in the COP26 pledge – which is off track – for developed countries to double adaptation finance by 2025. “Calls” is one of the softer verbs used in climate talks, weaker than “instructs”, “urges”, “invites” or “encourages”.
And the baseline – and lack of a quantitative target – will likely raise concerns. Developing countries want a tripling from the amount of adaptation finance developed countries should be providing in 2025, which would be an increase from at least $40bn to $120bn a year.
If calculated from actual 2025 adaptation finance levels, analysis by CARE and Oxfam suggests that is likely to be around $25 billion, though exact figures will not be available until 2027. Using that baseline rather than the 2025 goal could shave about $50 billion a year off what developing countries can expect in 2030, which will not meet rapidly rising needs amid worsening droughts, floods, storms and heatwaves.
Greenpeace’s Rebecca Newsom said the tripling adaptation goal is “not strong enough” and “vulnerable countries are again left to deal with the escalating impacts of climate change without sufficient plans to unlock the public finance they need”.
Tricky issues of trade, finance and emissions cuts covered
The ‘Mutirao’ text covers the contentious issues which competing negotiating blocks tried, and failed, to get on the COP agenda. It proposes outcomes including new initiatives, talks and calls – but nothing concrete and significant.
On emissions-cutting ambition – a small island and EU priority – the text proposes the creation of a “Global Implementation Accelerator” and a “Belem Mission to 1.5” – both aimed at helping countries improve their climate action. Governments are also “encourage[d]” to strengthen their existing NDC climate plans “at any time with a view to
enhancing its level of ambition”.
On finance – a developing country priority – the text “decides” to scale up finance for developing countries and “calls for enhanced efforts” to meet the COP29 promise to triple annual outflows of funds like the Green Climate Fund. And it promises a “roundtable” of senior ministers on how they’re meeting the finance goal decided at COP29.
On the nexus between trade and climate – an emerging economy priority to discuss – it requests three annual dialogues at the June Bonn sessions. An African trade negotiator told Climate Home News it was “a start” but disappointing that there is not a “full COP item on it”. “It’s like they want to kill it but in a polite way,” the negotiator said.
Just transition: Fossil fuels and minerals out but action mechanism in
A separate decision proposed by the Brazilian presidency on the Just Transition Work Programme, which is intended to ensure the shift to clean energy is fair and equitable within and among countries, doesn’t mention fossil fuels either.
Proposed language on “transitioning away from fossil fuels”, which was agreed at COP28 in Dubai but has continued to be strongly opposed by petrostates including Saudi Arabia, has been removed from the latest text.
The Arab Group, as well as a group of large emerging economies that includes China and India and the African Group spoke against including fossil fuel language in the text, observers told Climate Home News.
However, a demand by an alliance of 134 developing countries to develop a just transition mechanism that could serve as a hub to support countries to take concrete steps to ensure their shift from dirty to clean energy systems is fair and equitable remains in the document.
The mechanism would focus on boosting international cooperation, technical assistance and capacity building and help countries share knowledge to protect workers, nature and human rights.
In the text, negotiators are requested to work on a proposal to set up the mechanism for consideration at COP31.
Campaigners made agreement on a mechanism – which they called the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) – one of the top demands throughout the talks, arguing that current efforts to deliver a just transition are fragmented and inconsistent. But this has been opposed by developed countries, including the UK, Norway, Canada, Australia and the European Union.
Minerals reference removed after China opposition
References to the minerals needed to manufacture batteries, solar panels and batteries for the energy transition, which were included in the draft text for the first time in a COP document, have also been removed from the Just Transition Work Programme following opposition from China – the juggernaut that dominates mineral processing.
China controls 70% of the refining for 19 of 20 strategic minerals for the energy transition, identified by the International Energy Agency.
The new proposed text recognises “that energy transitions towards low-carbon economies may include socioeconomic risks and opportunities” and notes the role of countries’ just transition pathways “in minimizing risks and maximizing opportunities associated with these transitions”.
Previous versions of the draft had recognised “the importance of developing reliable, diversified, sustainable, transparent and responsible supply chains for clean energy technologies, including through environmentally and socially responsible extraction and processing of critical minerals”.
One option had suggested going further and recognising “the social and environmental risks” associated with scaling cleantech supply chains, including “unsustainable extraction and processing of critical minerals”.
Developing countries as well as the UK, the EU and Australia previously called for the risks and opportunities of mineral extraction and processing to be reflected in the text.
However, the latest version of the document still highlights the need for “broad and meaningful participation” to ensure that the road to clean energy is “effective, inclusive and participatory”.
It highlights the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including free, prior and informed consent, self-determination, and the rights of uncontacted groups.
“Minerals are the backbone of the shift away from fossil fuels – leaving their governance out of just transition planning will undermine efforts to accelerate renewable energies by 2030 – a key target the COP has already set,” Antonio Hill, an advisor at the Natural Resource Governance Institute, told Climate Home News.
“There’s still a chance for COP30 to stand up for fair and safe minerals value chains. Parties must find a compromise that ensures the transition doesn’t rest on the backs of communities or nature,” he added.
