GLOBAL MUTIRÃO, WHAT THE COP30 TEXT SAYS
The Global Mutirão text was intended as an attempt to address four crucial issues that were left out of the COP30 agenda: the ambition and implementation gaps of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the implementation of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, and carbon border adjustment measures. Although the premises were good, the results lack ambition.
To address the NDC gap, it was decided to launch a Global Implementation Accelerator and a Belém Mission to 1.5. The former is presented as a voluntary initiative, led by the COP30 and COP31 Presidencies, to accelerate implementation efforts by all actors to keep 1.5°C within reach and to support countries in realizing their climate targets (NDCs) and their National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). The latter, under the leadership of the COP29, COP30, and COP31 Presidencies, aims to enable ambition and implementation of NDCs and NAPs by reflecting on how to accelerate implementation, international cooperation, and investments. At the end, the Roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, pushed by the Brazilian Presidency, did not go through. In fact, any reference to fossil fuels is entirely missing from the text, while the decisions from the Dubai Global Stocktake are only recalled in their entirety, without specific mention of the more ambitious paragraphs (28 and 33). As a result, the outcome fails to make progress on mitigation—an essential element for achieving the Paris Agreement’s climate goal and limiting end-century global warming to 1.5°C.
With regard to climate finance, it was decided to establish a two-year work programme, also including Article 9.1 within the context of Article 9. The adaptation finance goal is framed as an effort to at least triple it by 2035 compared to 2019 levels, with a call on developed countries to increase their trajectory in this respect. This objective falls within the decision taken last year in Baku to mobilize at least USD 300 billion per year for developing countries from developed countries (also counting climate-related flows from Multilateral Development Banks and any voluntary South-South contributions). This outcome is very weak compared to the request made by the least developed countries to set a goal of tripling adaptation finance by 2030 relative to 2025 levels.
On carbon border adjustment measures, the subsidiary bodies are requested to hold dialogues at the June sessions of 2026, 2027, and 2028, with the participation of Parties and other stakeholders, to consider opportunities, challenges, and barriers to enhancing international cooperation in trade. At the same time, paragraph 3.5 of the UNFCCC is reaffirmed, stating that all Parties should cooperate to promote an open and supportive international economic system, and that measures to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.
Although the text clearly acknowledges the existence of serious pre-2020 ambition and implementation gaps on the part of developed countries, the negotiated response remains dramatically insufficient.
As of November 2025, only 122 Parties have submitted their new NDCs despite the deadline set for February—figures that highlight a growing disconnect between the requirements of the Paris Agreement and the reality of countries’ action.
The negotiating text acknowledges the gaps, but it does not introduce any credible mechanism to close them: it merely ‘invites’ countries to develop implementation and investment plans. Even more problematic, however, is the choice to further dilute the language on the pathway toward climate neutrality. The previous draft called for encouraging Parties to align their NDCs with national net-zero targets by mid-century, clearly implying individual responsibility. In the approved version, instead, the text simply refers to alignment ‘towards global net zero by or around mid-century,’ a weak and ambiguous formulation that allows individual countries to evade any binding national trajectory, implicitly shifting responsibility onto collective performance. Operational provisions also remain minimal: peer-to-peer exchange workshops and references to capacity-building are envisioned, but there are no follow-up instruments, no implementation indicators, and no minimum quality requirements for NDCs.
Article by Claudia Concaro and Anna Pelicci, Italian Climate Network delegates at COP30 in Belém.
Cover image: UN Climate Change – Kiara Worth