A fire late on Thursday near the East Africa pavilion at COP30 in Belem, Brazil forced mass evacuations from the climate summit, just as negotiations were reaching their end. A ‘bad omen’? Maybe, given what followed.

COP30 was meant to be concluded on Friday, but a monumental clash on fossil fuels has divided delegates. The draft final COP30 deal, called Mutirão, omitted a reference to phase out or even transition away from fossil fuels, leading to a showdown.

The word mutirão comes from the term motyrõ, used by indigenous peoples in South America, meaning “work in common” or “mutual aid.” But the draft final deal turned out to be anything but.

COP30 president Andre Correa do Lago urged delegates to reach agreement, “this cannot be an agenda that divides us.” But with 82 countries demanding phase out and with 22 fossil fuel producers strongly opposing any of the options put on the table earlier, the talks have been left deadlocked.

Saudi Arabia, talking on behalf of the oil producing countries, warned that “targeting their industries could collapse the negotiations.”

A group of 29 countries wrote to the COP presidency rejecting the latest draft final deal “unless it includes a roadmap on fossil fuels.” They went as far as to say “in its present form, the proposal does not meet the minimum conditions required for a credible COP outcome.”

Text can be included in the final deal only if it is approved by consensus. With the two sides poles apart, that looks near impossible. It has brought to the fore the limits of consensus. Despite this, the COP30 presidency is pressing to move on, with only “small adjustments to existing text.”

The row about fossil fuels is overshadowing other major disagreements on climate finance and trade and cutting CO2 emissions faster. Even though the draft deal calls for tripling of finance to help countries adapt to climate change by 2030, it does not say how this money would be provided. There is also lack of a roadmap on deforestation. And on trade it proposes, rather vaguely, dialogues over the next three years “to discuss issues related to unilateral trade measures.”

EU commissioner for climate Wopke Hoekstra went as far as to say “under no circumstances are we going to accept this text. Nothing that is remotely close to what is now on the table.” The EU rejected the draft deal, but was criticised by emerging economies that demanded the bloc “commits more finance to help poorer nations cope with climate change.”

Giving up hope for a deal at Belem, Colombia and the Netherlands agreed to co-host a first global conference in April to “work-out a fair path to phase-out fossil fuels.”

Unfortunately, these rows and disagreements obscured most other discussions about the issues that were meant to define this COP.

Guterres stepped-in

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stepped into the controversy. He called for a “just, orderly and equitable” transition from fossil fuels, as agreed at COP28.

He also called the 1.5C goal a “non-negotiable red line” and warned that “an agreement must balance concerns over adaptation resources with the need to curb soaring emissions.”

He stressed that the world is watching COP30 and asking “how much more must we suffer? They have heard enough excuses. They demand results.” He asked for compromise and the need to find common ground and a balanced deal. “This is the hour for leadership,” he said. But, it appears, to no avail.

Attempting to steer away from controversy

Brazil, in issuing the new final Mutirão draft, attempted to steer away from controversy by removing the roadmap to “transition away from fossil fuels” and softening the language on finance and trade. It was an attempt to secure convergence, but it appears to have backfired.

The Mutirão proposed two key initiatives in an attempt to shift emphasis to implementation and a just transition:

Global Implementation Accelerator (GIA): A cooperative platform intended to help countries execute their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs), enhance international cooperation, and ensure implementation is fair and equitable

Belém Mission to 15°C: A coordinated push through COP31 to accelerate mitigation and adaptation, backed by targeted investment and strengthened technical collaboration

But the outcome is seen by many as weakening ambition.

Inevitably, the negotiations did not conclude with an agreement on the key issues on Friday as scheduled, extending into the weekend, with the final outcome remaining uncertain.

The COP process

It is probably fair to conclude that this year’s UN climate summit will not achieve any serious progress on critical issues, ending with a weak or vague deal that reflects ongoing geopolitical divisions. And it managed that even without US President Donald Trump directly interfering. But perhaps the cause was lack of strong leadership to give direction and drive consensus on the more critical issues.

With COP29 also widely considered to have been a failure due to its inadequate climate finance agreement and lack of progress on key issues, an ignominious end to COP30 is bound to put into question the legitimacy of the whole COP process.

Entrenched positions on fossil fuels, insufficient climate finance, resistance to agreeing a new just transition mechanism, a growing gap between rhetoric and action, persistent lack of progress on key issues and continuous postponing of difficult decisions have undermined the process’ credibility.

The UN COP process while vital for bringing all countries to the table often results in the lowest common denominator agreements that do not match the scale and urgency of the climate emergency.

Turkey will host COP31 at Antalya, while Australia will take on the presidency and lead the negotiations, under a compromise deal reached between the two countries.