The UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) left a positive outcome and a prospect for much future work to expand the consensus not reached in Belém, especially on developing a map for exiting fossil fuels. This is the assessment of one of the main Brazilian negotiators at the conference, Ambassador Mauricio Lirio. For him, one of the main victories achieved by developing countries was their success in tripling funding for adaptation and overcoming resistance from the Europeans. “It was the hardest point to convince the rich countries,” Lirio told GLOBO.
What is your assessment of the negotiations at COP30?
The balance is positive. First, because we have been able to preserve the climate regime, and this was not evident at the beginning of the year with the US withdrawal (from the Paris Agreement) and with this limited delivery of NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions, commitments by countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions). We ended the year with a mandate to negotiate (with a mandate to continue negotiating at COP 31), which is always difficult in a COP, with an overwhelming presence, in a good way, of parties not new to the Paris Agreement, and with NDCs reaching around 80% of global emissions. We have also been able to make progress in launching initiatives that did not reach consensus, especially the Tropical Forest Fund, which represents an element of conceptual and practical change in forest conservation.
Regarding the issue of financing, do you consider that there has been significant progress?
The key progress was the tripling of funding for adaptation. Rich countries want to invest most of their money in mitigation efforts, and poor countries want rich countries to invest their money in adaptation efforts. Basically, we’re talking about investing in infrastructure, in the ability to respond to natural disasters. It was a victory for the developing world. The Europeans have resisted this tripling a lot, because it falls within the package of what they pay.
This has been a sensitive debate in Belem…
This was the most difficult point to convince rich countries. The Europeans resisted to the end.
The debate was intense between the Europeans and countries such as China and India.
The Europeans want more countries to contribute to this financing. The issue is that there is no accounting in the system that is acceptable to all regarding historical responsibility for carbon in the atmosphere. This is a central point. Annual issuance is terrible, but inventory accumulated over 200 years is even worse. Therefore, countries that have recently developed or are still in the development stage wonder about the necessity of paying this bill. Rich countries do not want an accurate accounting of their historical responsibilities. We return to the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities.
How do you evaluate the position of China and India in climate negotiations? They were strongly opposed to the fossil fuel exit map.
They have different reasons. India faces a more acute problem of access to low-cost energy, because it has not yet achieved the transformation that China has already begun. These are two different dilemmas, and they are two countries that depend on fossil fuels. In India’s case, I would say all forms of fossil fuels. In the case of China, there is a heavy reliance on coal. But India and China were important partners in the COP. Today, China is one of the actors most committed to maintaining the climate change regime.
Saudi Arabia has taken very explicit positions in Bethlehem.
In Belem, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and others were able to maintain their positions because the main actor that previously criticized Saudi Arabia (the United States before Trump’s second term) is now converging with it in an attempt to increase the value of fossil fuels.
How will conversations about the map continue? Will the issue be transferred to OPEC?
The COP30 presidency wants to hear from many countries and organizations dealing with energy, including OPEC, which is a major player.
What was born in Belém was an alliance in favor of eliminating fossils?
I think this assessment that about 80 countries supported the road map and 80 countries opposed it more or less reflects reality. There is room (to move forward). The issue is the difficulty of reaching a global consensus. Key initiatives have emerged from non-global groups, and are important in these difficult moments of absolute consensus. This has been the case with the Global Alliance Against Hunger at the G20.