Pressure peaks in Belém as finance and Just Transition stalemates grip COP30

Finance and just transition set the pace of negotiations on Thursday as COP30 entered a critical phase, with delegates racing to narrow down heavily bracketed texts before the Subsidiary Bodies close on Saturday. With only forty-eight hours left, the pressure to resolve political bottlenecks around Article 9.1 obligations, unilateral trade measures, and the scope of a proposed Belém action mechanism visibly intensified across negotiating rooms.

The stakes are high: what happens before Saturday will determine whether Belém breaks its deadlocks or carries them into an even more contentious second week.

Finance fights deepen

Finance dominated the day’s agenda, resurfacing long-standing divides. In talks on the Adaptation Fund, Türkiye, Ukraine and Russia objected to aligning language between the Convention and the Paris Agreement, warning of political consequences. But the African Group, AILAC, the Arab Group and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) insisted negotiators stay focused on institutional arrangements needed to operationalize Article 6.4 proceeds for the Fund.

Article 9.5 ex-ante reporting remained deadlocked. Developed nations including the EU, UK, Canada, Switzerland and Norway insisted on maintaining consistency with previous decisions and opposed any reference to domestic budget processes. AOSIS and the African Group pushed back, calling for stronger predictability, transparent scrutiny and a robust technical expert review. A revised text is expected soon.

Talks on aligning finance flows under Article 2.1(c) showed broad acceptance that implementation must be nationally driven, non-punitive, and complementary to Article 9 obligations. Developing countries warned that unilateral trade measures disguised as climate action threaten sovereignty and development space. The EU acknowledged the concerns but urged countries not to turn the issue into a blame game.

Just transition talks turn heated

Just transition negotiations grew increasingly fraught. The G-77/China proposal for a Belém action mechanism, particularly its sections on unilateral trade measures, triggered sharp exchanges. LMDCs denounced instruments such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as disguised protectionism that harms developing economies without delivering real mitigation gains. The EU and UK rejected that claim, arguing CBAM protects environmental integrity rather than distorting trade.

Youth representatives urged negotiators not to reduce just transition to a quarrel over tariffs. Speaking from the Global South perspective, COP30 youth delegate and YouthNet Global executive coordinator Sohanur Rahman said:

“A just transition cannot be reduced to tariffs and border taxes. It must protect workers, communities and the most vulnerable, not punish developing countries for choices they did not create. Without fairness, there is no transition at all.”

Human rights language again split the room. Cuba and several African countries opposed references they said were undefined under the UN system. AOSIS and the EU countered that rights-based approaches are integral to a 1.5°C-aligned transition. “The transition cannot leave frontline communities invisible,” one AOSIS negotiator said.

Presidency Steps in but divisions hold

By midday, COP30 Presidency official Túlio Andrade convened what he described as a “collective therapy session” to encourage convergence. But the attempt yielded limited progress. The Arab Group and African Group opposed clustering NDCs, BTRs, Article 9.1, and trade-related issues into one negotiating track, insisting each requires separate treatment. AOSIS again underscored that Article 9.1, the legal obligation of developed countries to provide climate finance, remains central to trust.

Mexico urged negotiators to focus on the quality and accessibility of climate finance, not just numbers. AILAC called for urgency and time-bound milestones. LMDCs reiterated that without concrete delivery on Article 9.1, meaningful climate progress is impossible. Russia said unilateral trade measures have “haunted” negotiations for years. Canada called for trust-building, the UK stressed cooperation, while Tuvalu reminded Parties that “the world expects outcomes, not procedural stalling.”

Responding to rising tension, the Presidency proposed guardrails: protecting the Paris Agreement architecture, ensuring respectful engagement, keeping NDCs nationally determined, and preserving the Global Stocktake mandate. Parties spent the afternoon refining these principles.

Mixed progress across technical tracks

Under the Mitigation Work Programme, countries debated preambular language and whether to continue a digital platform. Japan, Ukraine and AILAC preferred to close work on the platform, while the African Group and Egypt urged keeping options open. Delegates also disagreed over how to reflect outcomes from global dialogues and whether future workshops should carry mandates.

Article 6.8 discussions focused on reviewing non-market approaches and strengthening the NMA Platform. Differences persisted over whether to broaden its scope. A draft decision is expected soon.

The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) remained one of the day’s most difficult files. AOSIS proposed linking mitigation ambition in the Paris Agreement to reduced adaptation needs. LMDCs sought stronger anchoring of the GGA in equity, CBDR-RC and Article 9.1. The EU resisted article-specific citations.

Work on indicators dragged on. The EU urged adoption of at least one indicator per sub-target at CMA 7. The African Group requested a two-year alignment period before indicators are finalised. AOSIS and the African Group backed a call for developed countries to triple adaptation finance by 2030, a proposal the EU opposed. By evening, the Arab Group declared the indicator list “not ready to sail” and suggested allocating half of the New Collective Quantified Goal to adaptation finance, around USD 150 billion. Co-facilitators will merge proposals overnight.

Technology negotiations saw some movement on transparency and governance principles for the Climate Technology Centre, but disagreements persisted on in-kind support, financial thresholds and links with the Financial Mechanism. Developing countries pressed for explicit commitments to provide finance; developed countries sought higher ambition aligned with 1.5°C.

Process reform debates under the SBI raised questions about efficiency. The EU and others supported clustered events and hybrid participation. The African Group opposed hybrid formats due to connectivity barriers. Youth groups demanded deeper reforms, including majority voting and conflict-of-interest rules.

Long night ahead

As the evening stretched on, negotiators noted limited progress on national adaptation plans. Many issues remained stuck. With temperatures dropping due to relentless air-conditioning, and tempers cooling just as fast , delegates drifted down the corridors in search of warmer spaces and clearer compromises.

The next two days will reveal whether Belém can break its gridlock, or whether the toughest battles are still yet to come.