From fire to fallout: COP30’s uneasy compromise

A new presidency cover text drops fossil fuel language, softens finance commitments and leaves the Global South walking a tightrope between progress and pressure

COP30 witnessed its most dramatic moment, yet. But it had nothing to do with text negotiations. On Thursday evening, a massive fire broke out in the venue’s ‘Blue Zone’, forcing talks to shut down for more than six hours. No one was injured, but those participating were clearly shaken up. They were seen helping each other. 

“That spirit is precisely what climate action demands. The climate crisis doesn’t care for our borders or diplomatic dramas. It requires the same urgency, solidarity and shared purpose we saw today, minus the flames, ideally. If we can respond to the planet’s emergencies with the same unity shown in that tense moment, COP30 might yet be remembered not for an incident, but for a turning point,” said Mohamed Adow, Executive Director of Power Shift Africa, in a Linkedin post. 

Early on Friday morning, that spirit seemed to be lost once again. A new “mutirão” draft or cover text from the Brazilian presidency was released, which is a mixed bag. While it contained no reference to a roadmap to phase-out fossil fuels or one on forest finance — which was being pushed by some developed and small-island countries — the language on climate finance, particularly adaptation finance, was weak, said experts.

A fossil-fuel roadmap, erased

In the first iteration that appeared a couple of days ago, there was a reference to a potential roadmap for a “transition away from fossil fuels”. That option has not been included in the new text. 

Yet, this contested roadmap that has displaced adaptation and finance demands of developing nations as front page headlines in global media, was not a negotiated agenda item to begin with. It was not among  issues that all countries had worked towards over months ahead of  COP30,  unlike  finance, adaptation and just transition, according to Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager, CSE.

“There seems to be a big push coming from the EU and its allies to make the Arab group, India, LMDCs look like the blockers of the talks at COP30 because these countries plus their allies within G77 have not readily agreed to the roadmap in the text,” Goswami told CarbonCopy. “This is a very old playbook. We should not be surprised by it. The blame game completely snowballs, amplified by western media outlets. It is something these countries should be used to and prepared for. Yes, developing countries have objected to the roadmap, but it’s because of concerns around differentiation and means of implementation, and not because they are blockers of ambition.” 

The roadmap’s removal came amid escalating pressure from a bloc of countries calling for a clear commitment to phase down and eventually phase out fossil fuels. UK-based Guardian newspaper first wrote about a letter to the Brazilian presidency by a group of nations warning they would block any final agreement that did not include such a roadmap. They described the roadmap as a red line for the talks.

The letter argued that the world was watching whether COP30 would build on the Global Stocktake outcome at COP28 in Dubai when  all countries had for the first time agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels.”

Yet, a roadmap for fossil fuel phase-down would inevitably raise uncomfortable questions for both fossil fuel producers and fast-growing emerging economies still reliant on coal, oil and gas. Its removal suggests the presidency has chosen to avoid triggering a political confrontation at this stage of the negotiations.

Within hours of the news on the letter to the presidency, several nations, including Colombia, Spain, Vanuatu, Luxembourg, Slovenia and others came together to say that there is no time to wait for a fossil fuel phase out roadmap. According to them, over 80 countries have extended support for the roadmap. 

Colombia, along with the Netherlands, announced the first international conference on a just transition away from fossil fuels, to be held in Santa Marta, Colombia, on April 28-29 in 2026.  With plans to identify legal, economic, and social pathways for phasing out fossil fuels, the countries will debate on finance, trade, fossil fuel subsidy phaseout, renewable energy acceleration, economic diversification, and labor reconversion.

“We must leave COP30 with a global roadmap. We want to endorse the Belem declaration. Transition has to happen now — how and how fast is the question,” said the Colombian representative, Irene Vélez Torres, during a press conference at COP30.

This push for a roadmap is being seen by some in the Global South as diversionary to discussing the means of implementation agenda at COP30.

“The roadmap, while a very important initiative, is very nascent. So for it to come and occupy so much space over the past two days has definitely derailed the agenda for G77 on many other items, which were supposed to be the headline issues of this COP,” Goswami told CarbonCopy.  

Acceleration without differentiation

The draft also proposes a “Global Implementation Accelerator”. This is framed as a voluntary, facilitative initiative to fast-track action on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and adaptation plans. But for now, it reads more like a coordination platform than a mechanism backed by clear finance, timelines or accountability. 

At the same time, by placing responsibility on “all actors” to scale up action and finance, the text weakens the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR).

Finance: the same old ambiguity, dressed in urgent language

On climate finance, the draft attempts to project urgency but without accountability.

“On finance across the board, ambitions are quite weak,” said Goswami. “There is a mention of tripling adaptation finance, but it is not clear that developed countries will be the ones providing most of it through public money. So the issue of dilution of responsibility, and broadening the contributor base to a vague set of contributors, is again becoming a prominent issue here.”

The text continues to reference the pathway to mobilising $1.3 trillion per year by 2035, and at least $300 billion annually for developing countries. But rather than clearly linking this to binding obligations under Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, it leans on language of mobilisation and collective effort.

Article 9: a compromise hidden in a footnote

A proposed two-year work programme on Article 9 is included, but with a key condition. It will proceed “without prejudging the process on the implementation of the new collective quantified goal”.

This detail is more than procedural. Developing countries had originally demanded a dedicated space to discuss Article 9.1, which is the legal responsibility of developed countries to provide public finance under the Paris Agreement. Instead, the text broadens the scope by implication, opening the door to discussions on both public and private finance, according to Goswami.
In effect, the document gave the negotiation a “win,” but took away its power by separating it from a meaningful result by sidestepping the justice angle and possibly opening the door to so-far unreliable private finance and vague discussions.

Trade measures finally enter the climate space — cautiously

Another shift in the text is the formal recognition of unilateral trade measures linked to climate action, including instruments such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

The draft proposes a series of three “dialogues” on these measures. They come with no enforcement power and no requirements for reform. Still, the language marks the first time these instruments are clearly acknowledged in a COP decision.

“While the new dialogues on trade mark progress, they should ensure that developing economies are protected from climate-linked trade barriers. But the absence of a new adaptation finance goal within the GGA discussions, and the continued reliance on broad ‘all-actors’ language on finance, could limit the mobilisation of finance. Moreover, the two-year work programme on climate finance falls short of a focused, dedicated process on how developed countries would fulfil their obligations. A credible COP outcome must strengthen the enablers of climate action for developing countries — not leave them navigating a more demanding transition with fewer tools,” said Arunabha Ghosh, CEO, CEEW, and South Asia Envoy to COP30. 

A new iteration is expected ahead of the plenary scheduled on Friday evening. The conference is likely to go into overtime.

About The Author

Anushka Mohite

See author's posts

Shaswata Kundu Chaudhuri

See author's posts