COP 30 ends with delicate Belem Political Package amid drama

COP30 banner. Credit - United Nations.

Belem, Nov 24 (Radhika Chatterjee/Meena Raman) – The COP 30 climate talks in Belem, Brazil, concluded in dramatic fashion after running a day overtime, finally wrapping up late on Saturday, 22 November. Following marathon negotiations, delegates adopted several key decisions, marking a tense and hard fought finish to the talks.

While there were mixed reactions to the outcomes in Belem, the G77 and China celebrated “the establishment of the just transition mechanism as a historic milestone,” [a decision under the just transition work programme (JTWP)], saying that “for developing countries, this achievement is more than an institutional step. It is a symbol of hope, solidarity and a promise that the international community will stand together to ensure that no nation and no community is left behind. We urge that this mechanism be swiftly operationalized at the next COP so that its vision can be translated into tangible support for those most in need.”  The Group also highlighted the importance of “tripling adaptation finance and its inclusion in the COP 30 outcomes.”

The adoption of the decisions at the closing plenary was expected to be smooth, given that heads of delegations [HODs] had worked all night long with the COP 30 Presidency, with little sleep since Friday, 21st Nov, to iron out last minute compromises on what was a very delicate package of decisions under the ‘Belem Political Package’.

However, when the closing plenaries of the governing bodies [UNFCCC COP, Paris Agreement’s CMA and the Kyoto Protocol’s CMP] were convened around 1 pm on Saturday by the COP 30 President, Ambassador André Aranha Corrêa do Lago of Brazil and decisions were gavelled through as a package, points of order were raised by several countries, in what appeared to be revolt, especially from the Latin American region.

These included Colombia for the Independent Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean States (AILAC), Panama, Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, and Sierra Leone who raised objections to the decisions adopted under the global goal on adaptation [GGA], citing various concerns and wanted the decisions to be reopened to address their concerns. The European Union [EU], Switzerland and Canada also raised concerns about the GGA decision. Colombia also raised objections to the decision on the mitigation work programme [MWP] and wanted changes to the text. [See details below].

Several other countries from the Like-Minded Developing Countries [LMDC], the African Group, BASIC [Brazil, South Africa, India and China] and Russia took the floor to support the COP 30 Presidency’s approach, clearly concerned that if the delicate political package of decisions were unravelled, then the climate talks were at risk.

This led to a suspension of the plenary for over an hour, before it resumed again with Do Lago saying that he deeply regretted that he was “not made aware of the requests from the floor.” Taking into account the concerns raised by several Parties and based on a consultation with the secretariat members, he said, the GGA decision “provides for further refinement of framework” and that this would be taken up by the Subsidiary Bodies [SBs] in 2026, who will “work further on these two issues [on the GGA and MWP] on the basis of the work done at this session.” He also added that “the secretariat has confirmed that decisions that have been gaveled are considered adopted” and that “today’s procedures must be avoided” and requested the secretariat to prepare guidelines and best practices [on the process].

Saudi Arabia sought clarification on what was meant by the President regarding the work by the SBs next year on the GGA and the MWP “on the basis of the work done at this session”, and Do Lago clarified and confirmed that the work will be based on the respective decisions agreed to in Belem.

Proceedings then continued, with further decisions adopted. When the time came for statements by Parties to be delivered, many provided their reflections on the decisions adopted. [See highlights below].

The key decisions adopted

Several key decisions were adopted as part of the ‘Belem Political Package’. Chief among them is the ‘Global Mutirao decision: uniting humanity in a global mobilization against climate change.’ This decision is a result of hectic informal consultations facilitated by the COP Presidency throughout the two weeks of the talks that began on November 10. On November 21, the day COP30 was scheduled to conclude, difficult negotiations went on throughout the night to hammer out the sticky issues and arrive at a compromise that resulted in the final text that has now been adopted as the Mutirao decision.

The key outcomes of the Mutirao decision included:

[i] A decision “to launch the Global Implementation Accelerator, as a cooperative, facilitative and voluntary initiative under the guidance of the Presidencies of the seventh and eighth sessions (November 2026) of the CMA to accelerate implementation across all actors to keep 1.5 °C within reach and supporting countries in implementing their nationally determined contributions [NDCs] and national adaptation plans [NAPs]”;

[ii] Calls “for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035…[and] urges developed country Parties to increase the trajectory of their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country Parties.”

[iii] The establishment of “a two-year work programme on climate finance, including on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement [PA] in the context of Article 9…as a whole;” [Article 9.1 relates to the mandatory provision of finance by developed countries to developing countries].

[iv] “Requests the subsidiary bodies to hold a dialogue” in June 2026, 2027 and 2028), “with the participation of Parties and other stakeholders, including the International Trade Centre, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the World Trade Organization, to consider opportunities, challenges and barriers in relation to enhancing international cooperation related to the role of trade,” and decided “to exchange experiences and views on related matters at a high-level event in 2028 and requests the subsidiary bodies to present a report summarizing the discussions at the high-level event.” [This is in response to a call by the Like-Minded developing countries (LMDC) for addressing unilateral trade measures]. [Further details on the Mutirao decision will follow].

Among other key decisions that are part of the ‘Belém Political Package’ are: the GGA; the JTWP; the mitigation ambition and implementation work programme (MWP); matters related to the Global Stocktake (GST); matters relating to finance in the COP, CMP and CMA agendas, in particular, the ‘Veredas Dialogue’, building on the Sharm el-Sheikh Dialogue on the scope of Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement (PA) and its complementarity with Article 9 of the PA; the technology implementation programme [TIP]; reporting and review pursuant to Article 13 of the PA: provision of financial and technical support to developing country Parties for reporting and capacity building; and the Belem Gender Action Plan.

COP 30 Presidency roadmaps on deforestation and fossil fuels

After adopting the decisions under the Belem Political Package, do Lago said that as the COP 30 President, it is his “duty to recognize some important discussions that took place in Belem and that needs to continue under Brazilian presidency until the next COP, even if they are not reflected in this text we just approved.”

He said “as President Lula said, we need roadmaps so that humanity in a just and planned manner can overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, halt and reverse deforestation, and mobilise resources for these purposes.” These roadmaps would be “led by science and they will be inclusive with the spirit of Mutirao.” He said his presidency will “convene high level dialogues, gathering key international organizations, governments from both producing and consuming countries, industries, workers, scholars, and civil society organizations, and will report back to the COP. We will also benefit from the first international conference to phase out fossil fuels [organized by Colombia] scheduled to take place in April in Colombia in 2026.”

[The proposal for a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, initially discussed outside the formal negotiations, became a major flashpoint when Colombia and the EU sought to insert it into the Mutirao decision during the final stretch of talks mid week.] [Further details on this will follow].

The drama after the gaveling of decisions

Right after the above decisions were gaveled, several Parties took the floor to express their views on two decisions: on the GGA and the MWP. Some of these Parties had raised their flags before these decisions were gaveled, but were given the floor only after the decisions were adopted. Panama expressed its disappointment with the process because its repeated requests for the floor had been ignored by the Presidency. It said, “We cannot endorse the GGA outcome that takes us backwards.” It said the GGA indicators were released very late, and the ones that made it to the final text are not the same as those that were negotiated by Parties over the last two weeks. “This is not how we get the GGA,” it said.

Uruguay, speaking for Argentina, Paraguay and itself said it cannot support the GGA outcome. It proposed that work on the indicators be continued on the basis of the decision proposed by the Presidency and concluded by September 2026.

Sierra Leone also expressed concerns about the GGA indicators and said the list in the final text is “not the list crafted by experts” and is “unclear, unmeasurable, and in many cases unusable.”

Colombia for AILAC said that “this COP was meant to be a COP of adaptation. The outcome before us falls for short,” adding further that Parties views were not “meaningfully reflected” in the GGA decision”.

Switzerland said the reduction of indicators from 100 to 59 was done through limited consultations and that it “had concerns about a number of indicators”. The EU said the GGA indicators package was not in line with Articles 7,9, 13 of the PA [ relating to adaptation, finance and the transparency framework] and that it “will not be able to support these indicators at this moment.”

Colombia also raised its objection on the adoption of the MWP decision and expressed concerns about the “procedural issues” in the plenary due to the manner in which MWP decision was gaveled. It said the point of order it had raised before the adoption of this decision had been ignored by the Presidency, and that it was left “with no other choice but to object to the MWP unless mention is made to include text that for “a global dialogue in 2026…[on] industry and pathways for implementing transition away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner…” adding further that “there is no mitigation if we cannot discuss transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner.” Panama also supported Colombia’s objection to the MWP decision.

Nigeria opposed Colombia’s proposal and said that “the transition pathway should strictly adhere to the principle of common but differentiated responsibility [CBDR]” and ensure that national structures and economic reality are respected. It said it recognized the urgency of climate change and emphasized that a “successful transition cannot be imposed…but rather it should be a deliberate process that is nationally determined.”

Since the decisions had already been gaveled, attempts to reopen them was not entertained by the Presidency.

When the plenary was opened for statements from Parties, reflections on the decisions adopted were expressed. The main highlights are provided below.

Highlights of interventions

Marina Silva, Brazil’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change said both roadmaps that were launched by COP 30 Presidency on transitioning away from fossil fuels in just, orderly and equitable manner and reversing deforestation will be guided by science and inclusivity. Listing out some of the key achievements of COP 30, she said, “We took an important step in recognizing the role of the indigenous peoples, traditional communities and afro-descendant people. A just transition has gained voice and substance through the presence of these groups. We launched the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), an innovative mechanism [which is an initiative of the Brazil] that values those who conserve and maintain tropical forests. The text of the global Mutirao has opened an important door for advancing adaptation with developed countries committing to triple adaptation finance up by 2035. This effort also includes instruments to address the ambition gap of nationally determined contributions [NDCs] such as the ‘Global Implementation Accelerator.’ It strengthens the alignment of the NDCs with development and investment policies and it recognizes the need to reshape international mitigation finance.” She called these results “fundamental gains for multilateralism”. [The Minister received a standing ovation after she delivered her remarks].

Iraq for the Group of 77 and China highlighted the importance of “tripling adaptation finance and its inclusion in the COP 30 outcomes.” On the just transition outcome, it said, “we celebrate the establishment of the just transition mechanism as a historic milestone,” adding that “for developing countries, this achievement is more than an institutional step. It is a symbol of hope, solidarity and a promise that the international community will stand together to ensure that no nation and no community is left behind. We urge that this mechanism be swiftly operationalized at the next conference of the parties so that its vision can be translated into tangible support for those most in need.”

On the GST, it said the group looks forward to the launch of the second GST next year, also to “constructive conversations” that will take place under the agreed scope and modalities for the UAE dialogue and the annual GST dialogue. On loss and damage, it welcomed the decision on the third WIM review, as well as the decisions on transparency in which Parties “have established the consultative group of experts (CGE) as a permanent body and established a three-year program of activities with an initial list to be implemented in 2026.” It called on developed countries to “provide the much-needed support for the CGE to fulfill its mandate and for the secretariat to implement the three-year program of activities starting within the initial list.”

The G77 also said that the true breakthrough on technology items at COP 30 lay in the work achieved on the Climate Technology Centre and Network [CTCN], adding that “by agreeing on new functions and hosting criteria, we have made this Centre fit for [addressing] the climate change.”  It also appreciated the adoption of the new gender action plan and cautioned that “secure and strengthened financing and means of implementation” must be ensured so that the plan “can be effectively delivered”.

India for the LMDC said “we have had some hard fights here and there have been some gains especially on the just transition mechanism which will enable the just transition for developing countries.” It said further that “although we did not get a work programme to just focus on the implementation of Article 9.1 of the PA, we believe that we have managed to secure some space to discuss the very important provision of finance from the developed countries,” adding further that the same was the case in relation to the unilateral trade measures, where “we are glad there’s a space at least now to discuss trade and climate linkages.” It also recognised progress on the GGA work.

Adding further, it said that “we have faced immense roadblocks from our partners in this COP on issues that are that are of critical importance to all of us. We would have finished the COP on time but for the continued resistance on an agreement to deliver on adaptation finance.” It expressed regret about the efforts made “to dilute the provisions of the tripling of adaptation finance from year 2030 to 2035.” It said “adaptation is not a choice for developing countries and providing adaptation finance is a legal obligation of the developed countries but over the past 14 hours and huddles we have seen attempts to dilute legal obligations on adaptation finance.” It said “we have seen requests for proposals that change the architecture of the PA and infringe on national sovereignty,” adding that “at a time when we need to save multilateralism such attempts are indeed disturbing. Demanding inclusion of non-negotiated items on the last two days of COP does not engender trust [in an apparent reference to the roadmap on the fossil fuel transition.]

Said India further, “in the 20 odd hours we negotiated last night we heard calls for annual NDC enhancement without any consideration of the burden of both reporting and preparing NDCs that would be put on developing countries.”  It said LMDCs “have the highest climate ambition and also implementation in this room despite our low historical responsibility and capabilities. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of those who seem to be the most vocal on advocating the transitioning away from fossil fuels.” It said further that “adaptation is our priority. Our regime is not mitigation centric. We have all signed on to the PA, where it is sufficiently clear that the developed countries must take the lead and provide the means of implementation support to developing countries. Even with our challenges we as developing countries are already doing more than our fair share. The facts remain that for developing countries, eradicating poverty, ensuring energy security and achieving sustainable development remains our overriding priority.”

It called on developed countries “not shift the goal post, to not infringe on the policy space of developing countries, and to stop diluting equity and CBDR, which are cornerstone principles.”

Tanzania for the African Group said the work concluded in Belém on GGA, including its indicators is an “important step”. It also cautioned that “indicators alone cannot protect a family from rising waters or yield harvest during a prolonged drought. Without means of implementation, finance, technology, capacity, these indicators remain elegant words on paper. This is why the absence of clear support for implementing national adaptation plans [NAPs] carries real consequences…and are not administrative documents, they are lifelines,” adding further that “when they remain unfunded, it is not simply a gap in their agenda, it is a missing opportunity to safeguard communities who live each day on the edge of climate extreme conditions.”

It said the just transition work at Belem “touches on Africa’s longstanding commitment to pursue a just and inclusive transition. For us, transition is not about abandoning our development aspirations; it is about reimagining them. A just transition must expand energy access to the hundreds of millions of Africans still in darkness, bring clean cooking alternatives to the 900 million who rely on biomass, and unlock opportunities for industrialisation and innovation. It must create jobs, advance dignity, and strengthen economies; not impose new constraints. Africa therefore urges that the central role of minerals, manufacturing, and value addition be fully recognised, for these sectors are foundational to a fair global transition.”

Malawi for Least Developed Countries said that Parties in Belem have “taken a step forward in strengthening multilateralism”, adding further that it was not satisfied with the GGA outcome and called it “very weak”. It lamented on the lack of means of implementation in the NAP and expressed disappointment with the GST. It called on the outcomes on transparency, capacity building and technology “weak” but appreciated the progress made on matters related to loss and damage, just transition and other finance agenda items. It said it came to the COP with the message of tripling adaptation finance by 2030 based on 2025 levels and that this finance would be grant based. However, developing countries did not get this. It called paragraph 53 [of the Mutirao decision] “weak” and said “we compromised” following the long hours of work.

Palau for Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) expressed concerns and disappointment with the GGA decision and the associated set of indicators. It said, the “recent International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion also reaffirmed the 1.5 degree C temperature limit as a legal limit. We call for a space here at COP to discuss how to get us back towards 1.5 degrees. This is vital not just for small islands, but for all of us.” It called the Mutirao decision important, even though it was an imperfect one. It said it was committed to working towards keeping 1.5 degree within reach. It welcomed the outcomes on loss and damage, the CTCN, the TIP, carbon markets, the gender and climate action plan, just transition, capacity building, and finance, particularly for adaptation.” It expressed concerns about MWP, “failing to deliver on the scaling up of ambition and implementation in this critical decade in a manner that complements the GST”.

Saudi Arabia for the Arab Group said that “there are different roles for developed and developing countries and we must also recognize the different pathway which will respect the different circumstances of each country. We must also respect national sovereignty and the NDCs which have been crafted.”

It said equity is most important for achieving climate action and called it the “true spirit of multilateralism,” adding that “multilateralism is not empty words; it’s based on cooperation” and that “each state must be allowed to build its own path which will be based on their respective circumstances including their respective economies and societies.” It added further that “the main message we can take away from this COP is that the implementation pathway will define climate action and also the priorities for climate actions” and for “an enabling international environment which will allow us to cooperate.”

Colombia for AILAC said it had hoped for more ambitious outcomes on mitigation, adaptation and finance. It said there is a need to take “more decisive action and more quickly.” It recognized “some progress” made on tripling adaptation finance and said “regrettably it’s not at all clear how much of this finance will be forthcoming from developed countries and if it will be available before 2035.” It hoped “there will be a quick scaling up of this.” It also said that “the transition away from fossil fuels must be authentic and must not be put off. There must be effective redistribution of resources towards communities, workers and the clean economies of the future and above all it must be supported by appropriate finance.” It welcomed the adoption of the just transition mechanism and said questions remain about its governance and how its effectiveness and credibility will be ensured. It welcomed the adoption of the Belem Gender Plan.

Venezuela for Cuba, itself and other members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America [ALBA] said that the decisions adopted are not perfect underscored “the need for means of implementation so that we can meet our climate targets, in particular tripling adaptation finance.” It said in the ‘COP of Truth’, “it is time for developed countries to meet their financial obligations and commitments. It is time to move on to implementation with political will without double standards and respecting the sovereignty of each state party, our realities and those of our peoples.”  It also added that “the criminal unilateral coercive measures must be immediately lifted because they have a direct impact on the capacity [of countries] to respond to climate crisis.”

Denmark for the EU said “the package in front of us, to some extent, is a missed opportunity. Nevertheless, EU will not stand in the way of this package”, adding that it was “the world’s largest provider of climate finance” and “welcomes the agreement on scaling up adaptation finance. The decisions also allow us to continue work on the energy transition, including the transition away from fossil fuels. Global action must happen with continued respect for human rights, the rights of indigenous people, equity, and the rights of women and girls.” It said further that the EU “looks very much forward to engaging in shaping the roadmap for transition away from fossil fuels and the roadmap for forests that can hopefully turn into a lasting legacy of Belem.”

Switzerland for the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) said it endorsed “the Belem mission 1.5 and the Global Implementation Accelerator to enable us to keep 1.5 within reach and to guide implementation of the GST outcome.” It said Parties “have reaffirmed the new collective quantified goal on finance [NCCG] and taken an important step toward supporting the most vulnerable.” Referring to the GST outcome from Dubai, it said “after committing to halting deforestation and degradation and transitioning away from fossil fuels, we need to better understand how to manage its transitions in a manner that is just and informed by science.” It welcomed the launching of the roadmaps on forest and fossil fuels by the COP 30 Presidency. On the just transition outcome, it welcomed the inclusion of reference to 1.5, the GST, human rights and gender and said it would work together to craft “an effective new mechanism”. On the gender, it recognized the inclusion of “crucial aspects like care, violence against women, and reference to all women and girls in the Belem Gender Action Plan.”

Australia for the Umbrella Group welcomed “the establishment of the Belem mission to 1.5 and the Global Implementation Accelerator to help drive implementation, cooperation and investment in climate action.” It said it is “concerned about the unwillingness to take forward the implementation of the GST. This was a landmark outcome that charts the path towards achieving the goals of Paris and keeping 1.5 degrees within reach. We cannot backslide. We are gravely concerned about attempts to undermine the science.” It welcomed the “reconfirmation of the IPCC status as the best available science and its critical work in informing action and policymaking.”

Adding further, it said, “adaptation and adaptation finance are important and we recognise the call to accelerate adaptation finance”. It took “note of the set of indicators to track progress towards the GGA” and but expressed disappointment with the outcomes under the MWP and underscored the need “to make progress.” It said “halting and reversing deforestation is critical our mitigation efforts and this should have been recognized.” It welcomed the agreement on the TIP and “the review of Climate Technology Centre to further promote technology development and transfer from 2026.” It also welcomed the further “strengthening of the JTWP” but expressed disappointment with the minimal progress made “on taking forward the GST outcomes.” – Third World Network