COP30 finally delivered a deal

After the drama of the last few days of the summit, COP30 finally delivered a deal on Saturday ‑ the Global Mutirão (meaning “collective effort”) ‑ despite major disagreements and divisions. It dropped explicit reference to fossil fuels, but it delivered on finance.

The EU fought hard for inclusion of fossil fuels phase-out, but came up against its own lack of cohesion and weakness in confronting the new geopolitical realities without the US on its side. It was expected to take more responsibility, but could not muster it against the strong resolve of China, India, Saudi Arabia and Russia. In effect, the Europeans (EU+UK) were sidelined.

In the end, lack of leadership contributed to the weak outcome. The enormous pressure that the US could bring to bear was not there to provide direction and the EU was not a substitute. As pointed out at Belem, if the EU “wanted to be a climate leader, it needed to sort out its internal divisions.” But despite the US absence and the EU limitations, international cooperation prevailed.

China played its role, but avoided stepping into the leadership vacuum. It prefers to portray itself as “a strong advocate for multilateral climate action and the global energy transition,” ‘championing’ the interests of the global-south.

An interesting ‘partnership’ that became apparent at COP30 was between China and India that spearheaded an “increasingly aligned push” for “more climate finance and fairer rules.”

Following strong resistance by the oil and gas producing countries led by Saudi Arabia, but also others such as India, phase-out of fossil fuels was left out of the final deal.

Some developing countries did not back the deal on fossil fuels because they wanted richer countries to first deliver on promises to commit climate finance.

But it was China’s climate envoy Liu Zhenmin, who articulated the challenge: “Some nations proposed roadmaps solely focused on ‘fossil-fuel phase-out’ without concurrently considering renewable energy development. This approach is unfeasible and would severely undermine national energy security, economic growth and social stability.”

However, the final deal made reference to the UAE Consensus. It stated that countries should implement their climate plans “taking into account the decisions” made at COP28 in Dubai that included “transitioning away from fossil fuels.”

The EU accepted it grudgingly, deciding not to block the final deal, despite its threats on Friday to do so.

COP30 agreed to mobilise at least $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate action. The vast majority of this will likely come from private-sector investment.

The Global Mutirão also called for “efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035” to $120bn/yr. This is five-years later than originally planned, but small island nations were happy they got their main demand through.

However, it did not include details of how that will be implemented and how much will come from public versus private sources.

There was also agreement on a set of indicators to allow countries to measure their progress under the global goal of adaptation (GGA).

An important decision was the development of “a just transition mechanism, the purpose of which will be to enhance international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing, and enable equitable, inclusive just transitions.”

But the final text did not include references to critical minerals, just transition away from fossil fuels or trade measures. 

Nevertheless, the creation of an institutional mechanism around just transition was received very positively by most countries.

The loss and damage fund was ‘operationalised’ and replenishment cycles were confirmed, starting 2027.

But despite being established two years ago at COP28, progress in ‘filling’ the UN fund for responding to loss and damage (FRLD) has been slow. It still remains critically underfunded. What has been committed so far is only a fraction of developing countries’ annual needs, which are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. 

COP30 agreed the launch of the Global Implementation Accelerator and Belém Mission to 1.5°C, to help countries deliver on their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and adaptation plans. Currently, these fall far short of what is needed. Also, in practice most countries underachieve them. A substantial gap exists between pledges and reality, as they strive to deliver at home. 

These initiatives were launched in response to acknowledging for the first time that there is likely to be an ‘overshoot’ of the 1.5°C goal. Based on the NDCs, the world remains on track for 2.3-2.5°C of warming by 2100.

Another new initiative was the “establishment of a first-ever just transition mechanism for workers, Indigenous peoples and frontline communities transitioning to renewable energy economies.”

The final deal also included, for the first time, reference to ‘unilateral trade measures’ (UTMs), that indirectly include EU’s CBAM and unilaterally imposed tariffs. It states that “measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade”.

The Global Mutirão fell short of the high expectations many had prior to the summit, but it nevertheless delivered results, keeping the Paris Agreement process alive. This was acknowledged by former Ireland President Mary Robinson who said: “This deal isn’t perfect and is far from what science requires. But at a time when multilateralism is being tested, it is significant that countries continue to move forward together.”

Disappointed at their exclusion from the final deal, Brazil announced that it “will lead an independent effort to rally nations to develop specific roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels and for protecting tropical forests.” But without COP backing, any such plans would not be binding.

Even though trade measures were dropped from the final deal, they are expected to resurface in future, particularly EU’s CBAM that attracted widespread criticism.

It is now ten years since the Paris Agreement, and there is a growing realisation that COPs are becoming disconnected from real-world climate action and may benefit from a pragmatic reset.

If what transpired at COP30 is repeated at future COPs -which is very likely even if the US returns- multilateralism will be the new norm. The US and the EU will not again have monopoly of leadership, but, in a rebalancing of power, will have to share it with the ascendant BRICS and other emerging economies. 

In his closing speech, the UN climate chief Simon Stiell, going forward, delivered a message of hope: “COP30 showed that climate cooperation is alive and kicking… amid the gale-force political headwinds, 194 countries stood firm in solidarity…a new economy is rising, while the old polluting one is running out of road.”