The Brazilian Presidency released a final package under the so-called ‘Global Mutirão’ (meaning ‘collective efforts’) last Saturday, attempting to draw together discussions that had divided delegates over a fortnight of talks. The document covered finance, trade policies and continued ambition to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal.

Although numerous nations backed plans to transition away from fossil fuels and reverse deforestation, there was reluctant acceptance of COP30 President Andre Corrêa do Lago’s ‘compromise proposal’ to set up roadmaps outside the formal UN regime.

Fortunately, in line with the original objectives, a mechanism was put in place to help ensure a ‘just transition’ and measures to track adaptation efforts.

Carbon Brief pointed out that, although the event was billed as a COP of ‘truth’ and ‘implementation’, in practice there was a lack of consensus on key issues like fossil fuel curbs and unilateral trade measures, and significant financial shortfalls with regard to developing nations and small islands faced with alarming climate risks.

According to news service Edie: ‘Most objections in relation to the texts pertained to the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and related indicators.’ These frameworks are intended to provide a clear path for making communities, nations and supply chains more resilient.

The COP30 Mutirão did see text agreed for tripling of adaptation finance by 2035 – although this was five years later than some had hoped. Indeed, public funding for adaptation dropped in 2023 to $26bn, despite UN estimates that at least $310bn will be needed annually by 2035, a nearly 12-times shortfall.  

Still, the Mutirão ‘recognises the need for a manyfold increase in financial support provided to and mobilised for developing countries for ambitious adaptation and mitigation action’.

A voluntary global implementation initiative was launched by the COP Presidencies, along with a new ‘Belém mission’ to increase collective initiatives to cut emissions – backed by countries including Japan, India and Brazil.  

Brazil also launched a $6bn trust fund to protect rainforests, the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), covered in New Energy World last week. The EU pledged new funds for the Congo Basin.

The key Mutirão decision aims to keep the 1.5°C goal ‘within reach’ and recognises that the carbon budget ‘is now small and being rapidly depleted’. For the first time in a COP text, there is acknowledgment that there is likely to be an ‘overshoot’ of 1.5°C – ‘though the extent and duration of this needs to be limited’, the text says. (Despite countries submitting over 100 climate plans as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and other expert bodies consider that the world is on track for 2.3–2.5°C of warming by 2100.)  

There was also a call on countries ‘to accelerate the full implementation’ of their climate pledges and to ‘strive to do better’, as well as inviting them to draw up implementation and investment plans aligned with their climate strategies.

Although the draft paper included an option which linked the ‘global stocktake’ and annual discussions on NDCs to the fossil-fuel transition and ending deforestation, these were both opposed by LMDCs (like-minded developing countries) including China, India and Saudi Arabia, and the African group (which would like to exploit its fossil resources given minimal carbon emissions to date – around 2%).  

In fact, there is no mention in the final text of fossil fuels, roadmaps, Paragraph 28 (the transition away from fossil fuels) or the need for annual discussions on NDCs. Going forwards, ‘information sessions’ are planned for the UN climate talks in Bonn in June 2026 and at COP31 later in the year.

On the plus side, the Mutirão text offered a ‘proposed roadmap’ to transition away from fossil fuels, which was signed by more than 80 countries, including the EU and climate-vulnerable Pacific Islands. But in the face of opposition from Saudi Arabia, India and other major fossil fuel producers, the text was watered down, despite negotiations which yet again stretched into overtime.

Cosima Cassel, Climate Diplomacy Lead at independent climate change think tank E3G, notes that the Mutirão ‘implicitly keeps the transition away from fossil fuels alive’. She told Carbon Brief: ‘Given the resistance from major fossil-fuel producers, even maintaining that implicit link was hard-won… What we have is essentially the most that could be agreed without triggering a veto… Much will depend on how Brazil, Australia and Turkey choose to drive this agenda forward.’

As the event was located in Amazonia, over 5,000 indigenous people made their presence heard. But only 360 secured passes to the Blue Zone, compared to 1,600 delegates linked to the fossil fuel sector. Even those indigenous groups were mostly observers and were unable to vote. And the choice of location, although symbolic, was taxing for those attending, given high temperatures, extreme humidity and the lack of accommodation. Delegates stayed in luxury hotels and two ocean liners brought in by the Brazilian government, in an area where many still lack basic amenities.  

Protests of various sizes were held every day, with most notably the Great People’s March on mid-Saturday of the Summit.

The US was notably absent, given Trump’s aversion and denial of climate change. Roll-back of US ambition regarding the energy transition may have encouraged other oil producers like Saudi Arabia to decelerate their own climate pledges, and deterred others. However, China has stepped in as the world’s largest supplier of green technology, and used COP30 to promote its solar, wind and EV industries. According to the conversation.com, many delegates found the absence of the US (and the nihilistic approach of some of its pro-fossil-fuel delegates) as a relief.

.

There was also a brief, though unrelated, 18-minute fire during the Summit, which caused a distraction.

Nevertheless, the main outcome of the talks was considered to be ‘weak’ and got nowhere near the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The absence of the words ‘fossil fuels’ from the final text is considered to be a concern, since they were central to the Glasgow COP climate pact in 2021 and the UAE Consensus in 2023. In the closing plenary, the EU called this ‘a missed opportunity’.

Greenpeace complained that COP30 in the Amazon rainforest should have delivered an action plan to end forest destruction by 2030. Jasper Inventor, Deputy Programme Director, Greenpeace International, commented: ‘COP30 started with a bang of ambition but ended with a whimper of disappointment. This was the moment to move from negotiations to implementation – and it slipped. The outcome failed to match the urgency demanded.’

As the conversation.com noted in its review of the Brazilian climate summit: ‘The gulf between oil producing countries (in particular in the Middle East) and the rest of the world has never been wider.’

Let’s see what next year brings; COP next convenes in Antalya, Turkey.