COP30 Week 1: Negotiation Highlights and CGIAR Perspectives 

Week 1 of COP30 in Belém, Brazil – set against the backdrop of the Amazon – was eventful and at times fraught. As negotiators grappled with complex issues, CGIAR’s delegation closely followed eight key tracks vital to food systems and climate action. These span from gender equity and adaptation metrics to agricultural transformation and climate finance. Below we summarize the week’s progress (and pitfalls) in each track, and what it means for CGIAR’s mission to advance science-based, inclusive climate solutions. 

Gender and Climate Action: A New Plan Stalls in Brackets 

A major milestone at COP30 was supposed to be agreement on a new UNFCCC Gender Action Plan (GAP) to guide the next decade of gender-responsive climate policy. Week 1 saw intensive negotiations on this plan, but no final consensus yet. The draft text that emerged is heavily bracketed meaning many sections are unresolved with disputes over procedural fairness and how to recognize under-represented groups’ voices. Notably, some Parties complained they lacked time to even deliver their interventions, insisting this concern be recorded for Week 2 talks. 

These process frustrations mirror substantive tensions. At COP29, negotiators extended the gender work programme for 10 years but avoided any explicit climate finance commitments for gender, disappointing developing countries who wanted dedicated funding. That contention has carried into COP30. Developed countries prefer to handle finance in broader talks, while developing countries argue a robust GAP needs resources behind it. The hope for Week 2 is that ministers can broker agreement on a GAP that moves from rhetoric to results, directing real support to women on the ground. For CGIAR whose research shows empowering women farmers boosts climate resilience a strong outcome here is crucial. 

Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA): Indicators Debated, Timeline in Dispute 

Adaptation is front-and-center at COP30 (some have even called it “the adaptation COP”),and the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) negotiations reflect this heightened focus. In Week 1, countries dived into the thorny task of finalizing a framework of indicators to measure global progress on adaptation. This stems from the UAE’s framework of 11 adaptation targets including targets on water, food and agriculture adopted last year, which now needs concrete metrics. 

Deep divides emerged over how and when to adopt these indicators. Many Parties including vulnerable nations, urged that COP30 (as CMA7 under Paris Agreement) finalize a core set of metrics now to start tracking resilience improvements. Others, notably the African Group and LMDCs (Like-Minded Developing Countries), pushed for a slower timeline: a two-year “UAE–Belém work programme” to refine indicators and align policies, only adopting them by 2027 (CMA9). This timeline tussle also ties into finance: some developed countries want a specific adaptation finance indicator agreed now, whereas some developing countries prefer a broader approach first. 

Another sticking point is ambition on support. Proposals to triple adaptation finance by 2030 (relative to 2022 levels) have been tabled, given the glaring funding gap for resilience. But consensus is lacking  some donor countries resist firm figures. At week’s end, the draft GGA decision was forwarded to next week entirely in brackets, signaling no agreement yet. CGIAR, through its centers, including two scientists serving on the expert group for water and food has contributed to shaping several of the proposed adaptation indicators. The outcome of these negotiations is pivotal. Robust, agriculture-relevant metrics, if adopted, can strengthen accountability and channel much-needed finance toward climate-smart agriculture. 

A prolonged stalemate, however, risks delaying urgent resilience efforts. For CGIAR, this process is especially important it helps establish a global framework and clear demand for the climate-resilient agrifood science, data, and innovations that underpin our work. It ensures countries have the tools to turn adaptation ambitions into evidence-based action on the ground. 

 Just Transition Work Programme: Faultlines Between North and South 

The Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) proved to be one of the most polarized tracks in Week 1. This program, launched at COP28, aims to ensure that the shift to a low-carbon economy is fair and inclusive. Negotiations in Belém highlighted several faultlines between developed and developing countries, and by Friday there was little progress on a unified plan. 

A core debate is over institutional mechanisms and finance. The developing country bloc proposed creating a new implementation mechanism under the UNFCCC to coordinate just transition support, complete with predictable finance for developing countries’ transitions. They argue that without a structured mechanism, promises of “just” transitions will remain empty especially for communities reliant on high-carbon industries or smallholder farmers needing support to shift practices. Developed countries, pushed back, questioning the need for any new bureaucracy or funds, and preferring to use existing channels. 

Contention also flared over trade and energy issues. Developing groups  insisted the JTWP address unilateral trade measures like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, warning such policies could unfairly penalize their economies. Some even argued measures like CBAM contradict the principle of common-but-differentiated responsibilities. In response, the EU and others said trade measures lie outside the UNFCCC’s scope, proposing instead a more dialogue-oriented “Just Transition Action Plan” without new binding rules. Similarly, referencing fossil fuel phase-out proved divisive: many parties want the just transition framework to include moving away from coal, oil, and gas, but major exporters resisted any language on fossil fuels or even on “transitional fuels” like natural gas. 

Importantly, there are early signs that the agri-food systems agenda is beginning to surface within JTWP discussions. At least two countries raised the importance of food systems in the context of just transitions a notable step in a space long dominated by energy and industry. Earlier this year, CGIAR and partners made formal submissions advocating for the inclusion of agri-food systems in the JTWP, emphasizing the need to support smallholders and rural communities in managing the shift to low-emission agriculture. 

By week’s end, an informal note was issued reflecting divergent views with no consensus. CGIAR sees a strong JTWP as essential for enabling equitable transitions in agriculture. Bridging divides on finance, trade, and energy will be critical in Week 2 to deliver real support for rural communities. 

Research & Systematic Observation (RSO): Science Caught in Crossfire 

This ostensibly technical agenda item which deals with how climate science and data inform policy became a battleground over references to the best available science and misinformation, reflecting a broader tension between the summit’s pro-science rhetoric and some parties’ wariness of outside expertise. 

Early in the week, draft text on RSO included language on using “best available science” and even enhancing efforts to counter climate misinformation fitting for a COP emphasizing “truth”. However, certain countries objected strongly. Saudi Arabia, for instance, demanded deletion of any reference to countering misinformation, rejecting even a softened phrase about improving “communication” of science. This stance is notable at a conference where Brazil’s President Lula opened by urging defeat of climate denialism. Likewise, a reference to the IPCC (the global scientific authority) sparked debate: India questioned mentioning the IPCC’s new push for inclusivity (bringing more diverse scientists into its reports), arguing that without a clear definition of “inclusivity” they couldn’t endorse the text. In short, even nods to scientific bodies became contentious. 

Several developing countries, on the other hand, emphasized that science capacity and data in the Global South need support. They highlighted gaps in observation networks and urged commitments to boost funding for science and initiatives like the Systematic Observations Financing Facility (SOFF). These requests aimed to ensure all countries can produce and use climate data not just rely on external reports. 

 But to truly understand these tensions, we must go beyond labels like “anti-science” or “denial.” As some observers noted, resistance to scientific references often stems from legitimate concerns about fairness, representation, and historical imbalance in how science especially the IPCC is shaped. For instance, current mitigation pathways often fall short in representing Developing Nations realities. They overlook key equity principles like Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC), and fail to adequately address land-use burdens, energy access, and development rights, which disproportionately affect low-income countries. 

This is precisely why CGIAR’s role and the voices of science communities in the Developing Countries are essential. CGIAR supports building locally owned data systems, enabling agriculture and climate modeling tailored to regional contexts, and ensuring that science informs action in an equitable, inclusive way. 

Though conclusions were adopted, they avoided key points. Some delegates voiced frustration that even at the “COP of Truth,” the role of science couldn’t be clearly affirmed. For CGIAR, this reinforces our commitment to science that is not only rigorous, but also just, representative, and actionable. In a world of polarizing narratives and rising climate risk, we must ensure that science works for everyone—especially those who need it most to adapt, produce food, and protect livelihoods.. 

Agriculture & Food Security: A Bright Spot of Consensus 

In contrast to many stalled tracks, the Agriculture and Food Security agenda the procedural agreements were adopted in Week 1. Under the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Agriculture and Food Security a four-year program created at COP27 – countries are transitioning from dialogue to implementation.  

Parties managed to adopt procedural conclusions on agriculture as presented. However, substantial issues such as the outcomes from the first workshop (June 2025) remained bracketed in an annex to be negotiated during the next SBs (June 2026). This topic and joint work is key for the work of CGIAR and within the UNFCCC process, it recognizes that farming, which sustains billions of livelihoods and is highly climate-vulnerable (yet also a significant emitter), must be part of the climate solution. 

For CGIAR, this progress validates years of advocacy to integrate food, adaptation, and mitigation. The proposed text underscores the role of farmers, calls for greater support, finance, and capacity-building to implement climate-resilient agriculture. With a roadmap through 2026 on the horizon, this unity offers a strong foundation to advance CGIAR’s science and on-the-ground solutions. 

Article 6.8 (Non-Market Approaches): Cooperation Beyond Carbon Markets 

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement deals with how countries cooperate on climate action. While 6.2 and 6.4 cover carbon markets and trading, Article 6.8 focuses on “non-market approaches” (NMAs) essentially collaboration that doesn’t involve carbon credits or payments. This could include things like sharing technologies, policy partnerships, or joint adaptation projects. It’s a less flashy but important space for innovation, especially for sectors like agriculture where market mechanisms may not easily apply. 

In Week 1, negotiators discussed how to review and strengthen the Article 6.8 framework, as a formal review is due in 2026 (SBSTA 64). There was a general recognition that the work programme including its online platform for countries to showcase cooperative initiatives – needs to better serve parties. Ideas put forward included: conducting a survey of national focal points on how useful the platform has been, doing qualitative and quantitative assessments of NMAs implemented so far, and finding ways to increase the registration of new NMAs (since uptake has been slower than hoped). Some parties stressed the need for practical improvements so that more countries can benefit from non-market collaborations – for example, providing technical support or matchmaking for projects in areas like climate-smart agriculture or ecosystem restoration. 

However, differences emerged on how extensive the changes should be. Some parties favored keeping the text streamlined, cautioning against adding too many new mandates or reports in the next phase. Many other developing countries pressed for more ambitious enhancements: they want the 6.8 platform and work programme to enable “more and better supported” climate initiatives outside markets. As one observer noted, it’s about making this a real catalyst for action, not just a talk shop. 

The conclusions were adopted without major contention. For CGIAR, that’s encouraging: NMAs offer pathways to scale up knowledge exchange, capacity building, and climate finance beyond carbon markets. CGIAR’s own initiatives like ecosystem restoration in Colombia show what’s possible. As the review nears, we’ll continue showcasing how agrifood systems benefit from cooperative, non-market climate solutions. 

Loss and Damage: Incremental Steps Amid Demands for Support 

The Loss and Damage (L&D) track – covering both the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for knowledge/coordination and the Santiago Network for technical assistance – had a mixed Week 1. This agenda deals with helping countries cope with climate impacts that are beyond adaptation, a matter of growing urgency as floods, droughts, and other disasters intensify. 

On one hand, technical work did advance. Parties reviewed reports and adopted some conclusions on the functioning of WIM and the Santiago Network’s work, essentially tidying up annual business. Notably, the SBI/SBSTA plenaries on Saturday adopted texts for certain sub-items (reporting and procedural matters) as presented, which provided a sense of partial accomplishment. However, big-picture questions were left hanging. Much of the informal note capturing substantive ideas was not agreed. In fact, for two key sub-items, it was formally noted that the informal notes have “no status” and do not reflect consensus, meaning negotiators will have to revisit those issues in the future. 

The core divide is familiar: developing countries are urging wealthy nations to deliver predictable, accessible support for Loss & Damage, and to make the WIM more action oriented.  

Developing countries pushed for clearer coordination between the WIM, Santiago Network, and the Fund to ensure timely support when disasters hit. They also emphasized the need for predictable, accessible finance. Developed countries, while supporting the Fund in principle, were more cautious—resisting text that might imply liability or lock in governance structures prematurely. A quiet but important debate emerged over whether current ideas should shape future decisions. 

Meanwhile, real-world urgency looms: ~$700 million has been pledged, but annual climate-related losses top $400 billion. Week 2 must shift from discussion to delivery 

CGIAR produced research last year on how food systems science can inform L&D responses, the slow pace of agreement is concerning. Communities we work with (smallholder farmers, pastoralists, etc.) are already suffering losses that overwhelm their adaptation limits. We hope the political phase in Week 2 injects urgency, so that COP30 delivers not only acknowledgments of loss and damage, but concrete support channels to help vulnerable people recover and build resilience. 

New Climate Finance Goal (NCQG): Baku-to-Belém Roadmap to 1.3T 

Finally, underpinning all these thematic talks is the question of finance. Last year at COP29, countries struck a landmark deal on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance. They committed to mobilize at least $300 billion per year by 2035 for developing countries, with developed nations taking the leadwri.org. Beyond that, they set an ambitious collective aspiration: $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 from all sources (public and private), which is much closer to estimated need. This package sometimes called the “Baku-to-Belém Roadmap to 1.3T”  was a response to the failure of the old $100 billion goal and the glaring gap between climate funding and the costs countries face. 

At COP30 Week 1, discussions on finance focused on turning those pledges into action. The COP29 and COP30 Presidencies jointly developed, presented and conducted consultation on the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap, and they are expected to present it formally. In informal sessions, parties debated how to operationalize the roadmap’s five action fronts for reaching $1.3 trillion. Key issues include: identifying new sources of funding (such as MDB reforms, private sector contributions, innovative taxes or levies), ensuring a balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation, and establishing mechanisms to track progress and accountability toward the $300B/$1.3T targets. 

While the need for more finance is clear, key gaps remain,notably, no sub-goal for adaptation. Developing countries are pushing to double or triple adaptation finance, and want more grants, clearer milestones, and transparency on delivery. Developed countries prefer flexibility, citing budget limits and private sector uncertainties.Another topic is accountability: developing nations want clarity on how the $300B will be delivered, whereas some developed countries prefer flexibility, citing uncertainties in budget processes and private investment flows.  

For CGIAR, climate finance is the linchpin for progress across all tracks. With less than 5% of climate funds currently reaching agriculture, we continue pushing for food systems to be prioritized. Encouraging signs include the Belém Declaration, which ties climate action to hunger and calls for investment in resilient food systems. As ministers take over in Week 2, we’ll be watching for the reactions on the presidencies presentation of the roadmap and how it will reflect in formal negotiations. 

Turning Negotiation Brackets into Action 

As Week 1 wraps, many decisions remain bracketed, reflecting deep divides. With ministers now stepping in, Week 2 is critical to resolve key issues: adaptation metrics, finance, just transition, and gender. The mood in Belém is urgent but tense. Despite visible climate impacts and COP30’s focus on truth, negotiators are still debating whether to recognize IPCC science or name misinformation, a bad sign for the whole process. 

Still, there were bright spots: consensus on Article 6.8, and parts of Loss & Damage show that common ground is possible. Most agree climate action must accelerate, the question is how and who pays. 

For CGIAR, these final days matter. We’ll keep supporting negotiations with data, stories, and solutions from insurance for farmers to climate-smart agriculture. We’re pushing for food systems to be central to climate action, backed by science, inclusion, and innovation. COP30’s first week was a reality check. Whether it ends in breakthroughs or disappointment depends on political will. CGIAR remains hopeful: the world needs action that empowers countries and communities to build a climate-resilient future.

Authors : Regina Edward-Uwadiale and Daniela Miranda