18 November 2025

In response to the Presidency’s draft text issued on November 18 at #COP30 called Global Mutirão: uniting humanity in a global mobilization against climate change, Climate Action Network has the following topline analysis.

1.⁠ ⁠Preamble

The strongest elements of the preamble must be protected – particularly paragraphs 4 to 6, which anchor the text firmly in best available science and in the #ParisAgreement temperature goal. The references to holding warming well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C are essential. These clauses make clear that impacts are significantly lower at 1.5°C and the draft must retain this scientific grounding.

2.⁠ ⁠Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) & Adaptation Finance

Any outcome on #Adaptation in the Mutirão text must be fully backed by the separate Global Goal on Adaptation decision especially where it links to the new adaptation finance goal.

The only option using mandatory language on adaptation finance is the proposal to triple the Glasgow commitment to at least US$120 billion annually by 2030 from 2025 levels. This is the minimum acceptable starting point.

Crucially, the text must ensure this finance is:

• non-debt inducing,
• predictable and accessible,
• without added burdens or conditionalities for developing countries.

3.⁠ ⁠Finance & Article 9.1

The draft rightly recognises the continued shortfall against the US $100bn goal and the absence of a common accounting framework for Article 9.1 (para 25). Both points must remain.

However, some options risk implying that the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) itself fulfills developed countries’ core obligations under Article 9.1. This is inaccurate. The NCQG mandate is rooted in Article 9.3 – it cannot replace the binding provision obligations in Article 9.1.

The draft contains several strong proposals:

• A three-year Belém Work Programme and legally binding action plan on Article 9.1 implementation (para 57, option 1).
• A decision to triple adaptation finance (para 56, option 1).
• Option 1 is the strongest and should be strengthened with a clear near-term delivery plan. A combination of Option 1 + Option 3 could work – but only if references to “global effort” are removed and developed-country responsibilities are made explicit. Weak language such as “deliberating” on implementation should be avoided.

Option 2 offers structure, but the scope is too broad and not sufficiently anchored in provision. That structure could be borrowed and refocused on delivery.

4.⁠ ⁠Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) & the Ambition Gap

The draft gives #NDCs prominence but does not address the scale of the ambition gap needed to keep 1.5°C in reach or the link between ambition and access to #Finance, capacity, and other means of implementation.

To be credible, the decision must:

• call clearly on developed countries and major emitters whose NDCs are misaligned with 1.5°C and fair shares to update them,
• acknowledge that ambition cannot increase without access to finance and the removal of systemic barriers.
• The draft’s framing of ambition through “enabling environments” risks shifting responsibility onto developing countries to deregulate, rather than focusing on the international support required to enable ambition.

A stronger architecture is needed, including:

• a high-level roundtable with non-party stakeholders,
  annual dialogues with annual reports on barriers and enabling conditions,
• a collective roadmap by COP32 for a just, equitable, and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to renewables,
• a separate roadmap to halt and reverse deforestation, aligned with GST outcomes.
• All three options under paragraph 35 are far too weak and provide no operational pathway for implementing the Global Stocktake (GST) outcomes on energy and deforestation.

Under paragraph 44, Option 1 is the only option that provides the necessary grounding in the CMA (the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Paris Agreement) each year, allowing annual assessment of ambition and implementation gaps. Its explicit reference to GST elements is useful and should be retained.

Finally, the call to reform fossil fuel subsidies is welcome. But:

• the qualifier “inefficient” should be removed,
• Parties should prepare subsidy inventories and time-bound phaseout plans,
• production subsidies should end immediately,
  developed countries must lead on full fossil-fuel subsidy phaseout.

5.⁠ ⁠Trade

The intersections between climate and trade – including unilateral trade-restrictive measures – must be addressed within the UNFCCC and in relation to implementing a just transition.

To be meaningful, any process must:

• uphold UNFCCC principles, especially equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC),
• address trade-rule inequities that disadvantage developing countries,
  ensure provision of means of implementation for low-carbon development.

Of the options on the table, Option 3 – establishing a Platform on Unilateral Trade-Restrictive Measures Related to Climate Change – is the most suitable. But it must be strengthened by:

• linking it clearly to COP and CMA processes (especially Just Transition negotiations),
• ensuring technical dialogues with World Trade Organization (WTO), UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), International Financial Institutions and others.

Notes:

Link to draft letter: https://unfccc.int/documents/654375

Contact: media@climatenetwork.org