Inside COP 30

Day 11, November 21 - Delegates woke up to a flurry of new Presidency proposals on many outstanding issues. At the venue, they discovered that all pavilions had been fenced up after the previous day’s fire, but other areas remained untouched, and the negotiations could proceed as intended.

A press conference spearheaded by Colombia set the tone for the day: more than 80 countries are demanding an outcome on fossil fuel phaseout. They emphasized that the primary driver of the climate crisis cannot be ignored, noting that the latest version of the “Mutirão” decision “refuses to speak the truth,” and that this cannot be legitimized.

The Presidency’s “Mutirão” consultations quickly descended into turmoil. The European Union (EU), the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Environmental Integrity Group opposed the latest version of the draft “Mutirão” decision, which lacks a reference to fossil fuel phaseout. The EU stated that if COP 30 delivers on mitigation, they would be willing to “move beyond their comfort zone” regarding adaptation finance, provided all the elements of the new collective quantified goal on climate finance are respected. 

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Day 10, November 20 - The day will remain in the climate community's collective memory—not for progress achieved in the negotiations, but for the fire that broke out in one of the pavilions and led to a full evacuation of the venue.

The day initially picked up where things left off the night before—in backroom negotiations, with the Presidency conducting shuttle diplomacy to broker agreement among groups. At the technical level, some negotiators found consensus in the very early morning hours, such as those working on ex ante climate finance reporting. The room debating enhanced engagement of local communities in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process also settled on a way forward.

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Day 9, November 19 - Many delegates spent a good part of their day waiting, be it for political guidance to emerge from the ministerial and presidency-led consultations, for Parties to report on progress achieved in informal informals, or for new texts to emerge. As the hours passed, it became increasingly unlikely that Parties would manage to agree on any decisions, let alone on the most contentious issues, which the Presidency is trying to consolidate into a Mutirão decision.

With few issues on the negotiations schedule, press conferences became a magnet of attention. Many were keen to hear about developments regarding a growing number of countries’ call to define some form of roadmap for fossil fuel phaseout. The European Union pointed to its own energy transition plans and underscored the need to implement the outcomes of the first Global Stocktake, calling this a “reasonable ask.”

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Day 8, November 18 - The release of a host of new texts in the early morning set the pace for an intense day of negotiations. The Presidency’s doubling down on its intention to adopt decisions by the following day on a wide range of controversial topics—grouped together as the Belém political package—added extra pressure.

Meetings appeared and disappeared from the schedule, and the division of labor between, and pace of progress across, political and technical negotiation tracks left many confused. Even those sitting in the Mutirão had different understandings of the process, especially with regard to the reporting back from ministerial consultations. Despite delegates’ and presiding officers’ best efforts to clean up text and identify landing grounds, agreement remained elusive on key items such as the Global Goal on Adaptation and the technology implementation programme.

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Day 7, November 17 - At the outset of the second week of the Belém Climate Change Conference, the Brazilian Presidency was busier than ever. While negotiations continued at the technical level on a range of issues, the Presidency was also consulting on “the big four” issues: nationally determined contributions, biennial transparency reports, developed countries’ finance provision (under Paris Agreement Article 9.1), and unilateral trade-restrictive measures.

Discussions on “the big four” issues convened for close to seven hours, with convergence emerging around having a “Mutirão decision” spanning all of them. However, the “cover decision by another name,” as one observer put it, is beginning to “seriously haunt the process.” With increasingly blurred lines between the technical and political realms, the contours of the Mutirão package are not easy to grasp. 

Meanwhile, ministers descending on Belém for the second week of the climate conference were greeted with a torrential tropical downpour. As delegates inside the venue shouted to make themselves heard over the deafening noise of rain hammering on the leaky roof, the floods began to rise inside the venue—both metaphorically and physically.

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Day 6, November 15 - In their closing plenaries, the Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) adopted a number of conclusions and recommended draft decisions for adoption by the governing bodies of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement. These relate to least developed countries, support for developing countries’ reporting under the UNFCCC, and capacity-building, among others.

At the mid-conference point, it was time for negotiators to re-emerge from the nitty-gritty textual work underway in many negotiation rooms and take stock of overall progress as the Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) concluded their work. But the bigger picture remained an impressionistic sketch at best. Though delegates managed to put the finishing touches to some elements, many others exhibit only rough contours so far—often captured in heavily bracketed text that will inform discussions in the second week.

Discontent was on display during the SBs’ closing plenary, with several countries expressing dismay over the state of negotiations on items such as research, gender, and technology. “The COP of truth is turning out to be a big con if we cannot even agree on acknowledging climate science and combatting misinformation,” fumed an observer in relation to the discussions on research.

While the Brazilian ministers for the environment and for Indigenous Peoples made notable appearances at what is rumoured to be the largest ever Peoples’ Summit march of any climate meeting, other nations’ ministers were entrusted with the difficult task of fostering progress on the host of issues that evade agreement at the technical level. “I hope they have some tricks up their sleeves,” remarked an observer, keen to recharge their battery over a bowl of açaí at one of the many riverside restaurants nestled by the lush rainforests around Belém.

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Day 5, November 14 - In the morning, long lines formed outside the venue of the Belém Climate Change Conference. Following a blockage of the main entrance by Indigenous activists, armed guards funnelled delegates in through a side door. Despite the stark imagery of the entire scene, everything remained peaceful, and the negotiations started without a hitch.

As is typically the case towards the end of the first week of any UN Climate Conference, the negotiation schedule was very volatile. Scheduled sessions were cancelled, extended, or postponed as Parties sought additional time for informal engagement before wrapping up draft conclusions to be adopted during the Subsidiary Bodies’ closing plenary on Saturday.

In principle, only those issues that are also on the agendas of the governing bodies to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement continue to be discussed during the second week. If Parties do not manage to reach agreement on matters that are exclusive to the Subsidiary Bodies, further consideration would be delayed until the 2026 June Climate Meetings.

First discussions to land an agreement included:

arrangements for intergovernmental meetings, with some expressing disappointment over the conclusions’ lack of ambition and stressing the importance of improving the efficiency of the UNFCCC process; and
matters relating to least developed countries.
Other issues saw little progress, including those on the procedures for the Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement. In the science-related negotiations, Saudi Arabia opposed a call to enhance efforts to counter misinformation. 

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.
 

Day 4, November 13 - Trying to progress work before the looming conclusion of discussions under the Subsidiary Bodies on Saturday, delegates convened in various formats, sometimes adding, sometimes removing brackets in the draft texts. Negotiators working on just transition and the Global Goal on Adaptation met for several hours throughout the day.

Meanwhile, civil society activists reminded delegates of the numerous people around the world facing persecution, imprisonment, and worse as they stand up to protect shared natural resources.

In the annual intergenerational dialogue under the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP), Indigenous Peoples’ representatives emphasized their land rights and decried the backlash they face defending their territories against old-growth logging and infrastructure projects related to liquefied natural gas, among others. 

In other parts of the venue, delegates were hoping to see a big leap towards increasing the efficiency of the multilateral climate process. But, as the Least Developed Countries and the Alliance of Small Island States noted, the draft text currently under consideration falls far below expectations. Notwithstanding some progress, such as the publication of host country agreements, many Parties remain wary of venturing towards more radical reforms.

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.
 

Day 3, November 12  — Halfway through the first week of the Belém Climate Change Conference, finance issues loomed large across negotiation rooms. 

The lack of a dedicated space for key concerns shook up the usual negotiation dynamics. Deprived of a clear home in the meeting’s agenda, the push for tripling adaptation finance transpired across several rooms—sometimes at the cost of progress on other issues. “We are now getting the bill for the missed opportunity to include a dedicated adaptation finance subgoal in last year’s climate finance goal,” said one negotiator, adding: “Good thing there is still sufficient time for things to fall into place.”

Parties held on to their diverging views about the scope, expected outcome, and continuation of the mitigation work programme. While the Alliance of Small Island States, AILAC, and the European Union sought links to relevant Global Stocktake (GST) outcomes, this was opposed by the Arab Group and India. Similar fault lines were evident in the discussions on the annual Dialogue on how the GST informs the preparation of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which the Like-Minded Developing Countries consider has fulfilled its mandate.

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Day 2, November 11  — While delegations provided their opening statements, substantive negotiations launched on a variety of issues, including matters related to mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Presidency continued consultations with a view to identify a way forward on several of the contentious topics that were not included in the negotiations agenda.

As delegates rushed across the venue on a busy first day of substantive negotiations, their physical step count far exceeded progress within the rooms. Discussions on the mitigation work programme remained as entrenched as ever. “But that is business as usual at this point,” noted a seasoned delegate.

Observers were more surprised to see some developing countries suggesting to postpone the adoption of indicators towards tracking the Global Goal on Adaptation — something widely seen as the key output of the Belém meeting. Some mused this may have less to do with the indicators as such, and more with developing countries’ push for a tripling of adaptation finance.

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

November 10  — The first climate conference in Brazil since the fateful 1992 Rio Earth Summit opened with a pleasant surprise: despite the ever-growing list of issues some groups and parties wanted to see addressed in the negotiations, the agendas were adopted without a hitch. The Brazilian Presidency was quick to hold up its end of the bargain, a delegate noted as they left a four-hour long Presidency consultation on several of the contentious issues not included in the agendas.

Many participants said the host country was “in full force” throughout the day. President Lula took aim at “misinformation, hate-spreading algorithms, and climate denialism” in a clear rebuttal of the current backlash against green policies experienced around the globe. Doubling down on the choice of Belém as host city, he said that overcoming the logistical challenges was a testament to what is possible with sufficient political will.

Read the full daily report from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

At COP 30, the “Baku to Belém Roadmap” will take centre stage as countries work to turn last year's climate finance pledges into action.

What is the Baku to Belém Roadmap?

At COP 29 in Baku, the parties adopted a decision establishing a “New Collective Quantified Goal” (NCQG), a commitment to mobilize at least USD 300 billion per year in climate finance from developed countries. That decision invited the COP 29 and COP 30 Presidencies to develop a “Roadmap to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035” for developing-country climate action.

Published on November 5, the Roadmap sets out five areas where countries and institutions must step up efforts to scale climate finance:

Replenishing – Grants, concessional finance and low-cost capital

Rebalancing – Fiscal space and debt sustainability

Rechanneling – Transformative private finance and affordable cost of capital

Revamping – Capacity and coordination for scaled climate portfolios

Reshaping – Systems and structures for equitable capital flows

What could a successful outcome at COP 30 look like?

To deliver on the NCQG and make the “Baku to Belém Roadmap” a real catalyst for change, the process should outline concrete steps that translate high-level finance pledges into measurable progress. Here are key priorities for a successful climate finance roadmap:

• Underscore the importance of grants and concessional public finance. Many of the most critical investments for adaptation and a just energy transition cannot be financed on market terms. Grant-based support is essential to ensure developing countries can strengthen resilience and meet their climate commitments without adding to their debt burden.
• Align all climate finance with the 1.5°C goal. All climate finance should be consistent with pathways that limit global warming and must not support fossil fuels or false solutions that fail to reduce emissions.
• Explore alternative sources, including instruments such as debt-for-climate swaps, state-contingent bonds, and transparent debt management frameworks to ease fiscal pressure and expand resources for climate investment.
• Reduce barriers and obstacles to progress by leveraging public finance and fiscal policy tools, such as
  • tax reform: Broaden tax bases, rationalize expenditures, and introduce well-designed green tax incentives that attract investment in low-carbon technologies and climate-resilient sectors.
  • subsidy swaps: Redirect public subsidies away from fossil fuels toward development, social protection, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.
  • state-owned enterprise (SOE) transitions: Empower SOEs and national development banks to lead the transition by channelling capital into renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
  • shifts in international public finance: Phase out international public finance for fossil fuels and redirect these resources toward clean energy and resilience-building efforts.

At COP 30, negotiators will face mounting pressure to agree on a clear and credible set of indicators to measure adaptation progress toward achieving the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). 

What is the Global Goal on Adaptation?

The GGA is the collective commitment under the Paris Agreement to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability to climate change, with the ultimate aim of contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the context of the temperature goal. 

What’s the story so far?

At COP 28, countries passed a critical milestone by establishing the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience—the first framework for assessing progress against the GGA. Since then, adaptation talks have focused on developing indicators to support its implementation and identifying the next major issues for negotiation.

Tracking collective progress on climate adaptation while ensuring equity is complex because adaptation is deeply contextual. What’s more, there are differing views on how to capture means of implementation—namely climate finance—within the list of indicators. After marathon discussions at the June climate talks in Bonn, experts were tasked with refining the roughly 490 proposed indicators down to a maximum of 100 by COP 30.

What could a successful outcome at COP 30 look like?

A successful outcome at COP 30 would be a streamlined, balanced set of indicators that includes how to measure the means of implementation that make adaptation possible, ensuring accountability on climate finance flows. The set of indicators should be simple enough to integrate into existing national monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems, with agreement on how their assessment will inform the next global stocktake. It should also embed gender equality and social inclusion across indicators and retain a core set of equity-focused indicators.

In parallel, parties need to define the next focus of adaptation work—whether that means identifying how the next global stocktake will assess adaptation progress, developing methodologies for the indicators, or strengthening assessments of impacts, vulnerabilities, and risks. Developing countries have also called for a new, more ambitious adaptation finance target. Reaching agreement on these priorities will help ensure the work moves forward smoothly.
 

With the February 2025 deadline for submitting updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) already past, COP 30 will turn toward responding to the commitments that have been submitted and whether they reflect the “ratchetted up” ambition necessary to meet the global climate goals.

What are nationally determined contributions?

An NDC is a country’s climate action plan under the Paris Agreement, outlining how it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

What’s the story so far? 

Countries first submitted NDCs in 2015 and updated them ahead of COP 26 in 2021, but global emissions are still rising, and we need more ambition. The third round—due in February 2025— meant to close that gap, yet only 62 countries have submitted theirs as of October 16, and current plans still fall far short of what’s needed to keep the 1.5°C goal within reach. 

What should the new NDCs include, in addition to more ambition? 

It is essential that NDCs reflect the outcomes of the global stocktake adopted at COP 28, which provided a roadmap for the next phase of climate action, including the historic decisions to transition away from fossil fuels, double energy efficiency, and triple renewables.

NDCs from fossil fuel-producing countries should include details on reserves and extraction, phase-out pathways, as well as plans for a just transition.

To align with the Paris Agreement goal to hold global warming to 1.5°C, at a minimum, countries should commit to halting fossil fuel expansion. NDCs should also incorporate commitments to reform fossil fuel subsidies, including a commitment to develop national roadmaps that set clear policy-specific deadlines for phase-out or reform. The policy space of countries that take climate action should be protected so that these types of reforms can take place, including protection against investor-state dispute settlement enshrined in international investment agreements.

Above that, countries including an adaptation component in their NDCs should ensure it is informed by national adaptation plan (NAP) processes. This helps to raise the profile of adaptation and improve mitigation-adaptation synergies. Where appropriate, NDCs should also reference countries’ updated national biodiversity strategies and actions plans, for holistic and integrated action on climate and nature. 

See more: What NDCs 3.0 Are (and Aren’t) Saying About Fossil Fuel Production | International Institute for Sustainable Development 

As the first COP held in the Amazon region, COP 30 will bring unprecedented attention to the links between climate, biodiversity, forests, food systems, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. 

What’s the story so far?

 At COP 27, parties launched the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint work on agriculture and food security to enhance coordination and support the implementation of policies on agriculture, food systems, and food security.  

At the 62nd session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies in Bonn, for the first time, negotiators and stakeholders explicitly discussed broadening the scope of negotiations to consider a whole-of-food-systems approach, recognizing that addressing climate impacts on agriculture requires looking beyond farms to the entire value chain—from production and consumption to trade and waste. 

What’s at stake at COP 30?

At COP 30, attention is expected to turn to how the world grows food, uses land, and protects forests—with Indigenous Peoples at the heart of the discussion. Food and agriculture feature across the negotiation agenda—from adaptation indicators to finance and updated NDCs. Beyond the formal talks, the Brazilian COP Presidency will introduce several major initiatives aligned with their Action Agenda priorities, including the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, a new global fund to protect tropical forests and support local communities; the Resilient Agriculture Investment for net Zero land degradation initiative (RAIZ), which aims to restore degraded farmland and promote sustainable agriculture; and the Belém Declaration on Hunger, Poverty and Climate Action, which highlights how climate change worsens food insecurity and poverty.

What could a successful outcome at COP 30 look like?

Success will depend on whether these efforts move beyond declarations in Belém to deliver real, lasting change after the final gavel falls. The Tropical Forest Forever Facility will require solid financial backing and must ensure that Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and small farmers receive a fair share of support, with investments that uphold high environmental and ethical standards. 

For RAIZ, success will mean the inclusion of rules that guarantee land restoration in ways that protect biodiversity, support sustainable farming, and respect land rights—especially where tenure is uncertain or contested. 

The Belém Declaration will need to build on past commitments to fight hunger and poverty and ensure that it translates into concrete actions rather than promises. Across all these efforts, progress will be measured by inclusion, transparency, accountability, and impact: who benefits, where funds go, and how they contribute to cutting emissions, protecting nature, and improving lives.

As climate change impacts people across the globe, there is a growing recognition that investing in adaptation now will save lives and minimize costs in the future. At COP 30, countries will continue to negotiate a decision on national adaptation plan (NAP) assessment.

What is the NAP process?

The NAP process is a strategic process that enables countries to identify and address their medium- and long-term priorities for adapting to climate change.

What is the NAP assessment?

The NAP assessment aims to take stock of developing countries’ progress in formulating and implementing their NAPs, identify challenges and gaps, as well as best practices and forward-looking recommendations to further enhance and scale up adaptation actions in developing countries.

What’s the story so far?

At COP 29, countries were unable to reach an agreement on the NAP assessment, with discussions reflecting differing views on the state of support provided and mobilized for developing countries’ NAP processes. Many developing countries emphasized the importance of ensuring predictable and accessible public adaptation finance, while developed countries wished to highlight the role of the private sector in adaptation finance. Negotiations will continue in Belém, with the aim of reaching a consensus on a final decision.
What could a successful outcome at COP 30 look like? 

The NAP assessment should acknowledge the progress made by developing countries in advancing their NAP processes, while identifying remaining challenges and barriers. It should also highlight good practices, provide clear recommendations, and offer forward-looking guidance. The final decision should retain key messages on transitioning from planning to implementation; mainstream adaptation across sectors and levels of governance; promote gender equality and social inclusion; strengthen monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems; and highlight the importance of adequate, predictable, and accessible adaptation finance from all sources to developing countries’ adaptation efforts.

At COP 30, countries are expected to adopt a new Gender Action Plan (GAP) under the Enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender, extending its mandate for another 10 years. The updated GAP will guide how parties integrate gender equality and women’s empowerment across all areas of climate action.

What is the Gender Action Plan?

The GAP under the UNFCCC is a framework designed to advance gender-responsive climate policy and action. It supports countries in integrating gender considerations across all areas of climate work—from mitigation and adaptation to finance, technology, and capacity building.

What’s at stake at COP 30?

The new GAP will determine how gender equality is embedded across the next decade of climate action. Countries must agree on clear outcomes, stronger accountability, and a comprehensive approach, all with an inclusive framing of gender issues. 

What could a successful outcome at COP 30 look like?

A successful outcome at COP 30 would mean an updated GAP that:

• uses inclusive language: Moves away from a binary framing of gender and integrates more intersectional approaches.
• mainstreams gender systematically: Embeds gender considerations in national climate plans such as NDCs, NAPs, long-term low-emission development strategies, and more.
• strengthens capacity for gender-responsive action: Expands training and knowledge-sharing to all actors involved in climate action, not just gender focal points.
• strengthens coordination: Establishes regular collaboration between climate and gender ministries, and with gender equality advocates.
• improves data and analysis: Promotes disaggregated data and gender analysis across all streams of climate action and at all stages of the policy cycle.
• ensures robust monitoring and reporting: Defines measurable deliverables and targets linked with broader UNFCCC frameworks to create accountability for mainstreaming gender.

At COP 30, countries will decide how to take forward the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP)—the UNFCCC’s first dedicated framework for advancing equitable, people-centred climate action. With Brazil’s COP 30 presidency emphasizing social justice, decent work, and sustainable development, the JTWP can become one of the defining political outcomes in Belém.

What is the Just Transition Work Programme?

The JTWP was established at COP 27 in Sharm el-Sheikh and operationalized at COP 28 in Dubai. It provides a space for parties and observers to exchange experiences and policy approaches for achieving low-emission, climate-resilient transitions that create jobs, protect workers, and promote social inclusion.

What’s the story so far?

Since COP 28, several global dialogues have been held under the JTWP to deepen shared understanding of just transition and exchange experiences among countries. These discussions have focused on how to design inclusive transition strategies, align policies across mitigation and adaptation, support workforce transitions, and engage all parts of society. They have also explored connections between just transition, adaptation, resilience, and a just shift to clean energy.

However, COP 29 in Baku ended without a formal decision. Negotiations stalled over how to strengthen the Programme’s implementation—whether through new structures or by enhancing existing ones. As a result, negotiators instead continued work to define the Programme’s future structure and scope ahead of COP 30.

What could a successful outcome at COP 30 look like?

Negotiations in Bonn in June 2025 showed growing agreement that the JTWP needs to move from discussion to delivery. Countries recognized the importance of linking it more closely to finance, capacity building, technology transfer, adaptation, and gender equality—so that just transition principles translate into real-world action. There was also broad support for promoting policy coherence and encouraging whole-of-society approaches that bring together governments, workers, business, and communities. However, differences remained over how the Programme should be structured. Some parties want to reinforce existing mechanisms, while others are calling for and others proposing new structures—such as a toolbox, global platform, technical assistance network, or guidance framework—to support implementation. 

A successful outcome in Belém would give the Programme a clear mandate and practical direction. It would help countries develop national just transition strategies, integrate them into NDCs, NAPs, and long-term plans, and access the finance and technical support needed to put them into practice. Ultimately, it would reaffirm a broader framing of just transition—one rooted in human rights, gender equality, nature, and universal access to clean energy and clean cooking as the foundation of inclusive, people-centred climate action under the Paris Agreement.