The text of the Global Mutirão matters. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change (25 July 2025) decided that the formal agreements reached at COPs constitute subsequent agreements in relation to the interpretation of the Paris Agreement. This led the ICJ to determine that the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5°C has crystallised into the primary legal objective of the treaty system, displacing the goal of ‘well below 2°C’.

This sparked concerns that the Global Mutirão could have been used to row back, either on the 1.5 threshold or other central tenets of the Paris Agreement. This was avoided. Although the Global Mutirão does ‘reaffirm’ both temperature goals and mentions 2°C twice, it reiterates the resolve to pursue 1.5°C and to “limit both the magnitude and duration of any temperature overshoot” of that threshold. It repeatedly refers to limiting global warming to 1.5 °C with no or limited overshoot, and explicitly recognises the requisite emissions reductions targets to achieve this: reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035 relative to the 2019 level and reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

Equally, the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion did not have the galvanising impact on the negotiations for which some had hoped, given its affirmation that all states have legal duties to act with stringent due diligence to prevent, mitigate and remedy harms to the climate system and to co-operate to achieve that outcome. Many states from the developing world tried to put the Advisory Opinion on the agenda and there was text in the draft Global Mutirão welcoming the Advisory Opinion, but that was dropped in the final negotiating push.

The COP process requires decisions to be made by full consensus, meaning nearly 200 countries must agree each word of the main text. This has often prevented the requisite level of effort needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal from being agreed, and has meant that the need to ‘transition away from fossil fuels’ has been mentioned only once, in the agreement at COP28 in Dubai. Specific fossil fuels have also only been mentioned explicitly once: in the Glasgow Climate Pact in 2021, which called for ‘accelerating efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies’.

This year, 20 ministers from more than 80 countries (including the UK) supported a ‘roadmap’ away from fossil fuels. Until the final hours of the talks, the draft text of the Global Mutirão included reference to phasing out fossil fuels. The effort ultimately failed, partly through the opposition of petrostates and partly because big negotiating blocks, such as the EU, only made it a key negotiating aim halfway through the COP. The Global Mutirão does not mention fossil fuels directly.

At one point, COP30 was very close to ending in failure, without an agreed text at all, because of the wording on fossil fuels. Delegates were ready to walk away over the refusal to include such wording. But it was the last-minute surprise agreement of Saudi Arabia to compromise wording that saved the Global Mutirão and COP30. The UK and EU proposed the compromise: reference to the ‘United Arab Emirates Consensus’—an oblique reference to the agreement at COP28 in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels – as part of the work of a new voluntary Global Implementation Accelerator ‘to accelerate implementation across all actors to keep 1.5 °C within reach and supporting countries in implementing their nationally determined contributions and national adaptation plans’.

While a voluntary side-mechanism is far from what is needed or had been hoped for, the 80-country show of support for explicit text on the transition away from fossil fuels may grow stronger and return better organised at next year’s COP.

With the summit having closed without a stronger fossil fuel commitment, the pressure now shifts to national, regional and local governments and private-sector players to drive the transition. The Coalition for High Ambition Multi-level Partnership (CHAMP), launched at COP28, was active at COP30. It now includes 75 countries committed to integrating cities, regions, and other subnational actors into climate decision-making. A coalition of cities and regions ‘representing 25,000 buildings’ announced at COP30 that they had cut over 850,000 tons of CO₂ in 2024. CHAMP also made a significant push for sub-national level action on adapting to climate change.

The Global Mutirão underlines the ‘critical role of multilateralism based on United Nations values and principles’ and strongly reaffirmed the parties’ commitment to multilateralism and the principles and provisions of the Paris Agreement. This was a self-conscious attempt to counter the very obvious attacks on multilateralism that formed the context for the COP, most pointedly the decision of the US, for the first time, not to send a delegation to the COP, and its threat, yet again, to leave the Paris Agreement. It also reflects recognition of the current turbulence and conflict characterising world politics, marked by polarisation and climate denial. It was seen as important, and sending a crucial message, that an agreement was capable of being reached at all and that rumours that the Paris Agreement ‘was on life support’ were overblown.

However, the Global Mutirão is not nearly enough to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C and there have been calls for the process to be reformed, either by a move away from the consensus model or by the COP in its current form being discontinued. For now, these proposed changes appear not to have gained traction. The COP process is, though, grappling with changing from negotiations aimed at securing the overarching legal framework needed for the transition (where consensus was a necessity) to an implementation body.

Climate adaptation, or actions that help to reduce vulnerability to the current or expected impacts of climate change, such as weather extremes and natural disasters, sea-level rise, biodiversity loss, or food and water insecurity, took more of a centre stage at COP30. The Global Mutirão secures agreement to double adaptation finance by 2025 and triple it by 2035 – while this was much weaker than developing nations were pushing for, it does represent real progress, and a step-up in focus on adaptation. The Global Mutirão resolved to close adaptation gaps, commending the 71 parties that had submitted national adaptation plans (including the UK, although the lawfulness of that plan is currently subject to challenge before the European Court of Human Rights) and calling on the rest to submit before the end of 2025.

Released on 5 November, the COP29 and COP30 Presidencies presented the ‘Baku to Belém Roadmap’, which maps how to mobilise $1.3trn a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2035. It is organised around five ‘R’ action fronts: replenishing grant and concessional flows; rebalancing debt and fiscal space; rechanneling private finance and lowering the cost of capital; revamping capacity and coordination; and reshaping systems for equitable access.

The Global Mutirão does achieve a significant first. Describing the conference as the ‘COP of truth’, for the first time, the decision acknowledges the need to tackle climate disinformation, pledging to promote ‘information integrity’ and counter narratives that undermine science-based action.

Seventeen additional decisions were adopted alongside the Global Mutirão, and the Brazilian Presidency also underscored that COP30’s success extends beyond negotiated agreements, highlighting a wave of voluntary commitments under the Action Agenda. Key among them was the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (‘TFFF’), which raised $5.5bn and includes 53 participating countries. While other forest conservation mechanisms focus on rewarding emissions reductions, the TFFF takes a different approach, rewarding countries for keeping their forests standing. It is a ‘payment-for-performance’ model, using agreed satellite monitoring standards and systems as the basis for funding, at least 20% of which goes directly to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. While this is a significant step forward, it is much below the hoped-for initial capital base of $25bn and was far from the centrepiece of COP30 envisaged by the hosts. A serious blow came when the UK, which had helped to design the TFFF, announced at the start of the conference that it would not invest in the fund, but would instead support efforts to unlock private investment. So, although the Global Mutirão does not mention forests, side-agreement on the TFFF was reached.

The Global Mutirão recognises the need for a manyfold increase in the money necessary for ambitious adaptation and mitigation action, but in so doing agrees a crucial point: ‘the cost of inaction would significantly outweigh the cost of timely and effective climate action’. It is hoped this warning will be heeded. COP31 will take place in Türkiye in 2026.