PMCJ to COP30 Outcomes: Without Real Finance, Global Mutirao Decisionis only a Roadmap to Nowhere

As extreme climate impacts intensify with 22 out of 34 planetary vital signs flashing red and every additional 0.1°C of global warming exposing over 100 million more people to dangerous heat, all eyes are now on the final hours of negotiation in Belem. 

Significant gains in the Global Stocktake, the Global Goal on Adaptation, and the Just Transition Work Programme demonstrate that strong engagement and demands across constituencies and movements have led to progress. But this also means there are many more fights to be won, as the lack of concrete commitments on fossil fuels and finance overshadows these gains. 

The Brazilian COP30 Presidency’s Global Mutirão decision text has produced another empty text, falling short of the ambition, equity, and climate finance required for an urgent and meaningful global response to the climate crisis. Despite being named after the Tupi-Guarani term for collective effort, it does not reflect the urgency, clarity, scale, and justice needed to close the climate ambition and finance gaps. 

The roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels remains the most controversial issue in the negotiations. While the text references “just transition,” it does not provide clarity on the scale and source of climate finance to enable countries, especially those least responsible for the climate crisis, to overcome their dependence on fossil fuels. 

The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice sees that the roadmap to a fossil fuel phaseout omission shows the lack of urgency to end the harms to the Global South. Still, it will be meaningless without a clear timeline, indicators, and climate finance to move the world away from fossil fuels, along with a strong just transition dimension. These strong means to make the transition real were never what was truly on the negotiating table. 

Global North countries that are now publicly championing the roadmap have not matched their calls with commitments to deliver scaled, grant-based, and unconditional climate finance to the public – all while simultaneously expanding fossil fuel financing consumption across the Global South. Their insistence on appearing ambitious while refusing to commit actual climate finance exposes a profound contradiction and hypocrisy. It is therefore not surprising that it has only sown distrust and weakened support among developing countries, who refuse a roadmap that is essentially unfunded, unrealistic, and detached from the lived realities of their people. 

The text's discussion of climate finance further reflects this lack of seriousness. Although the text establishes a two-year work programme under Article 9.1 and mentions tripling adaptation finance, its language is ambiguous. A footnote allowing the work programme to “not prejudge” how the previously announced goals will be met significantly.  Now, this puts uncertainty whether this represents new commitments or simply a rehash of past pledges. 

This lack of clarity is particularly troubling given the scale of the climate finance gap. During the COP29 in Baku, developed Parties such as the European Union, the United States, and Japan agreed to raise at least $300 billion a year for developing countries by 2035. An analysis of the goal and climate-finance data shows that the “target is achievable with virtually no additional budgetary effort from developed countries, beyond already-committed increases.” Aside from this, the global investment in climate action is projected to be around $6.3 to $6.7 trillion per year by 2030. 

Not to mention, the current funds for adaptation are dramatically insufficient, as we need trillions for Global South communities. The adaptation finance language is unclear whether this will be a new, standalone target to deliver an additional $120 billion per year by 2030, as proposed by the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group, or a sub-target within the broader $300 billion annual climate-finance goal agreed last year. The 2025 Adaptation Gap Report shows that the Global South requires USD 310 to USD 365 billion per year by 2035, which is 12 to 14 times higher than the current adaptation finance flows. 

The decision text also raises the possibility of creating a legally binding, three-year action plan related to Article 9.1. However, it lacks provisions and specificity on whether this scaling up will be public, grant-based, and non-debt-creating climate finance that comes without strings attached. This is an essential requirement for countries already facing debt burdens that limit their ability to adapt or transition.

More than anything, it also fails to exert meaningful political pressure on rich, polluting nations to revise their inadequate Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), despite the 2025 NDC Synthesis Report making clear that the current pledges are inconsistent with the 1.5°C limit. PMCJ has already sounded the alarm that this reflects a broader problem: the NDC system is failing because many Global North governments are using it as a tool for evasion rather than for transformation towards justice. 

Although the Mutirao text recognizes the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities – a longstanding demand of strong people’s movements across the world – it does not translate this principle into accountability. By failing to place responsibility on those historically responsible for the climate crisis, the text reinforces a narrative that unfairly shifts the burden to the Global South rather than compelling the Global North to act. 

The Global Mutirao decision text is another meaningless agreement. PMCJ called on the Philippine government and its COP30 delegation to go beyond the general support for climate ambition and to lead in defending the concrete elements that make these ambitions possible for Filipinos and for the peoples of the Global South. We urged them to build strong alliances with fellow vulnerable and developing nations to secure real commitments on finance, adaptation, and just transition that reflect the lived realities of the frontline communities in the Philippines and beyond. 

Yet, what we get is radio silence on pushing for a credible and equitable roadmap for a fossil fuel phaseout that is inseparable from scaled-up, predictable, and grant-based public finance. This is unacceptable in light of the recent catastrophic events in the Philippines. Any roadmap that is empty on these only becomes an empty political gesture. The country failed to insist that historical polluters meet their obligations and carry their fair share of responsibility, and challenge attempts to shift those obligations onto developing countries. 

True climate leadership means resisting narratives that portray the Global South as a barrier to climate justice, as we know all too well what it means for our communities, for our survival. COP30 is a COP of truth. Parties failed to bring this truth into the negotiation rooms.

Still, the wins in the Just Transition text underscore the importance of a strong people’s movement and resistance – that a livable future is being built from below. The fight continues as there can be no climate justice without real finance that enables us to recover and rebuild our lives amid survival. 

#COP

---

For Inquiries: Elle Bartolome

seo@climatejustice.ph

Senior Executive Officer for Policy, Campaigns, and Communications