Brazil, which holds the COP30 Presidency, is considering the possibility of incorporating the most difficult negotiations into a co-determination.
The strategy applies to four themes highlighted for discussion in parallel: financing, climate change targets, trade measures and transparency. According to two negotiators interviewed, sheet Under suspension, it aims to overcome impasses that cannot be resolved on their own.
The biggest example of this obstacle is the money debate, where all recent negotiations have stalled due to rich countries’ resistance to complying with their obligations to allocate resources to countries considered to be developing.
Since the delegations cannot reach an agreement on this topic, Brazil’s idea is to derail the discussion by putting other issues on the same table.
For example: On the one hand, countries with small economies want to deal with loans, but the wealthy do not. Meanwhile, European countries want to discuss more ambitious national climate goals (so-called NDCs), but have been unable to secure support from the remaining participating countries. The solution is to create joint decisions that give direction to both issues at the same time.
According to people involved in the negotiations interviewed by the report, up to five possible deals are being discussed on parallel items, including a single decision that would address all items.
But strategies to unite deadlocks are not new. Two years ago, Brazil created something called Mission 1.5. This campaign will jointly discuss climate finance and meeting Paris Agreement obligations. The name refers to the climate goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century.
This combination of decisions was also applied to areas such as the G20 and BRICS, when Brazil, which also holds the Presidency, successfully raised the issue of global warming in the economic bloc’s negotiations.
Now, this strategy could be replicated again in parallel discussions at the Belem climate conference. The four items are being taken up in the so-called Presidential Consultations, an innovation created to prevent COP30 from stalling in the early stages.
All UN climate conferences have an agenda planned in advance. On the first official day of the event, countries can request new items to be added or removed from this agenda, and the final list must be agreed by full consensus, after which the actual negotiations will begin.
What will happen is that some countries will use this moment to make demands and suspend this recognition and negotiations until they are met. This is what happened at the COP30 preparatory meeting.
The topics that were brought up for discussion in parallel were exactly the four issues that some countries had wanted included on the agenda. In order to prevent past obstacles from occurring again, the president persuaded everyone to discuss them in parallel and began formal negotiations.
The consultation will look like this: sheetSaudi Arabia criticized the direction of funding negotiations and hinted it could start blocking other items at the meeting if it deems the issue is not being adequately addressed.
When it comes to unilateral trade measures, the main focus of tension is the European-created Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM, original acronym). Broadly speaking, it is a tax applied to the import of products in relation to carbon emissions. Asian countries, especially China, oppose the application of this mechanism, which could disadvantage their industries.
In this case, according to the predictions of those who follow this topic and spoke to Folya, the dialogue may take place through NDC.
Europe has defended Cbam but generally wants countries to set more ambitious climate targets. Smaller countries complain that the cost of paying border taxes can reduce investment in sustainable solutions, resulting in less ambitious climate change targets.
Some arrangements are being evaluated by the Office of the President. There may be one decision that addresses all four issues at the same time. Or two decisions, each covering two themes. It would be a less thorny road than negotiating four separate decisions.
According to people involved in the negotiations, their assessment is that balanced progress can be made on four fronts. Although none have been fully addressed, the discussion has not remained stagnant.
It has not been completely ruled out that some of the four sensitive topics could be included in the formal negotiation agenda, but that would mean a return to traditional meeting patterns rather than parallel dialogue.
The results of the talks were due to be announced on Wednesday (12th), but as the impasse continues and calls for more time for discussions have been postponed until this Saturday (15th), when Brazil is expected to reveal what the outcome will be.
About The Author
