On November 21, COP30 unveiled new texts, highlighting a proposal to triple adaptation finance by 2030 and introducing a just transition mechanism.
The texts, however, omit the roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Adaptation finance is to be primarily public and grant-based, but lacks clarity on responsible actors for the tripling.
In the early hours of November 21, 2025, the 30th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30) finally released a fresh set of draft texts after two days of silence and closed-door talks, offering the first real glimpse of how the outcome in Belem may take shape.
The new Global Mutirao text has reduced the number of options across the four issues drastically, compared to the November 18 version. The previously floated roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels is left out of the new iteration.
On climate finance, the new text suggests a two-year work programme on Article 9.1, but specifies, ‘in the context of Article 9 as a whole’. In a footnote to the seven-page document, it also states that the Mutirao decision does not prejudge the implementation of the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance (NCQG); in contrast to the previous iteration.
The new text also drops language on ‘operationalising Article 9.1’ completely. It ‘takes note’ of the Baku to Belem Roadmap to $1.3 trillion, and acknowledges the need to focus on mobilisation of the $300 bn under the NCQG. Overall, finance language in the new text is watered down.
On unilateral trade measures, the new text chooses one of the options from the older text — hold a dialogue at the sidelines of the sessions of the subsidiary bodies every year for the next three years from 2026, among Parties as well as external stakeholders.
The point on adaptation finance for developing countries to come primarily as public, grant-based and highly concessional finance is included. The decision highlights the need to triple adaptation finance compared to 2025 levels by 2030. However, it does not specify which actors should drive this tripling.
The new text retains proposals to launch the ‘Global Implementation Tracker’ and ‘Belem Mission to 1.5’, aimed at scrutinising ambition and implementation of NDCs for reaching 1.5°C.
The draft decision establishes a just transition mechanism to boost international cooperation, technical assistance and capacity-building, but it does not secure additional or predictable finance from developed to developing countries.
The November 21 draft reflects major trade-offs: Language on climate-related trade-restrictive unilateral measures, pushed by G77+China, like minded developing countries, African and Arab groups, has been dropped, but so has the ‘transition away from fossil fuels’ phrase supported by developed countries, Alliance of Small Island States and Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean.
Language on means of implementation is also softer, avoiding clear references to developed-country obligations. Other disputes, such as Paraguay and Argentina’s objections to using the term ‘gender’, appear resolved, while all references to critical minerals, which China opposed, have been removed.
The new GGA draft adopts the Belem Adaptation Indicators, despite several developing countries calling for the list to be only ‘taken note of’. The adaptation text drops the entire section on the new adaptation finance goal, replacing it with a placeholder.
Reporting requirements are eased: Prescriptive links to BTRs and other instruments are deleted, ‘requests’ become ‘invites’, and the use of indicators is voluntary, addressing concerns about duplication and capacity limits.
All references to transboundary risks are removed, reflecting objections from countries like India and Pakistan. Post-Belem work is set as a two-year ‘Belem-Addis vision’, with some of the existing mechanism like the Adaptation Committee, tasked to refine methods and help countries test the indicators. The Baku Adaptation Roadmap will structure the follow-up work on the GGA.
The new text charts a future pathway for Article 2.1(c) talks, acknowledging "no common interpretation" and that it is "no substitute" for Article 9 finance. The text embeds certain developing country safeguards: Discussions under Article 2.1(c) must be nationally determined and non-prescriptive. It also launches the Veredas Dialogue, an open annual forum for continued deliberations on Article 2.1(c), scheduled for review in 2028.
On the Technology Implementation Programme, the latest Presidency draft leans toward developed country positions, narrowing the temperature goal and framing the programme as a complement to the existing technology mechanism.
While it outlines support functions, core disputes on Intellectual Property and trade barriers are elevated to ministerial levels, leaving the programme's ambition unresolved until a 2028 review.
With the new texts now out and the talks formally scheduled to end today, it’s unclear how quickly Parties will reach consensus given the contentious streamlined drafts.