High Expectations, Last Minute Delivery
Coming out of COP29, the B2BR was a tantalising prospect in which many saw potential for addressing what they saw as shortcomings in the NCQG. While the B2BR was not mandated to be considered by the CMA or negotiated at COP30, many observers worked to create an expectation that it would be featured strongly in Belém. Whether it was a greater focus on the provision of public finance by developed countries, thematic targets for adaptation and loss and damage, or clearer direction for unlocking private sector investment, the B2BR was something everyone could project priorities into. This was backed up through the regular drumbeat of webinars and deluge of submissions by Parties and non-Party stakeholders during the year.
In a year when the negotiations agenda lacked the entry points for the most pressing finance issues (adaptation finance, NCQG follow up, and Article 9.1), the B2BR had begun to be seen as an opportunity to balance the ledger and create a sense of progress. But despite the many engagements with the COP30 Presidency, it was difficult to get a clear picture of the B2BR’s development during 2025. Drafts of the Circle of Finance Ministers (CoFM) report were circulated, but not of the Roadmap itself. The Presidencies tried to provide assurance that the CoFM report was just one input of many, but the CoFM’s profile and broad remit, combined with lack of clarity on the Roadmap itself, meant the relationship between the two documents felt unclear.
Alarm bells for the B2BR process began to ring at the pre-COP in Brasilia in early October. A highly anticipated presentation was first rescheduled and then was incredibly, short, devoid of substance, and without opportunities for questions. It was clear the Roadmap was far from ready. The proposed release date of 27 October already left little time before COP30 itself and would make it difficult for negotiators to be able to digest the content and engage meaningfully with the Roadmap in Belém. When the release date was postponed to 5 November, what little opportunity remained for the B2BR to be significant at COP30 disappeared.
The B2BR at COP30: missing in action
Ahead of COP30, one of the key points of discussion in civil society regarding the B2BR was how to land a ‘hook’ for following up on the Roadmap’s implementation in the negotiations. The most common ideas were for a reference in a cover text, asking the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) to report on its progress, and/or including a reference to it in updated guidance for biennial communications made under Article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement.
However, negotiators arrived in Belém far less engaged in the B2BR than civil society had been. At the start of COP30, most negotiators admitted that they had either not read the Roadmap or that it was still under consideration in their capitals. For many, they had already been in or en route to Belém when the report was published. This meant formal conversation about the B2BR was largely absent from the negotiations and the potential ‘hooks’ for the Roadmap were not put on the table.
Parties that did engage on the content had mixed views. All could find things they liked in the Roadmap and things they strongly opposed. For example, developed countries opposed calls for them to scale up their provision of grants manyfold without a reference to a broader contributor base. Many developing countries strongly opposed references they saw as suggesting remittances could be counted towards the US$1.3 trillion goal. With mixed views on the content and no clear pathway to negotiate or refine the content, no Party champions for the B2BR emerged. The COP30 Presidency held a side event on the B2BR at the end of Week 1 but it provided little clarity on the way forward.
The Mutirão finally mentions the B2BR
The B2BR finally received attention during week two of negotiations at COP30 and the development of the ‘Mutirão Decision’. Drafted by the COP30 Presidency on the basis of consultations on contentious agenda item proposals, it also captured some other important issues that lacked a ‘home’ in the negotiations, such as the Roadmap. Paragraph 47 the final Mutirão Decision
Reaffirms the call on all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing to developing country Parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035, takes note of the “Baku to Belem Roadmap to 1.3T” and welcomes the efforts undertaken by the Presidencies of COP29 and COP30 in fulfilling their mandate;
This paragraph only notes the Roadmap and does not comment on its substance or implementation. However, it is supported by paragraph 48, which creates a basis for related action:
Decides to urgently advance actions to enable the scaling up of financing for developing country Parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035 and emphasizes the urgent need to remain on a pathway towards the goal of mobilizing at least USD 300 billion for developing country Parties per year by 2035 for climate action, with developed country Parties taking the lead;
While only paragraph 47 explicitly mentions the B2BR, the connection with paragraph 48 is significant as ‘Decides’ is one of the strongest operative verbs used in UNFCCC decisions. It constitutes a clear and agreed path of action – rather than a mere ‘urging’ or ‘encouraging’ of action that is more commonplace, especially with regards to finance. Paragraph 48 does not mention the B2BR, but by aligning with the NCQG language on US$1.3 trillion and coming immediately after the reference to the Roadmap, it gives Parties a clear steer to consider the actions detailed in the B2BR.
This was a nimble piece of diplomacy by the COP30 Presidency. Parties would have been unable to endorse the roadmap as a whole due to the lack of time to consider it and some its controversial content. However, by balancing a weak ‘noting’ of the report with a strong paragraph that ‘decides’ to take action towards the US$1.3 trillion it still creates a hook to see follow up on the Roadmap’s key recommendations and suggested short-term actions.
Suggestions for the way forward:
Despite the difficulty getting traction with the B2BR in Belém, 2026 offers a range of opportunities to support progress. The clearest opportunity comes from the Roadmap itself. While it mostly comprises recommendations and suggestions, the B2BR did contain one clear commitment on behalf of the authoring Presidencies:
The CMA6 and CMA7 Presidencies will convene an independent expert group tasked with refining data and developing concrete financing pathways to get to 1.3T in 2035, building on the action fronts defined in this Roadmap, with a first report by October 2026. Throughout 2026, the Presidencies will also convene dialogue sessions with Parties and stakeholders to discuss how to make progress on the action fronts outlined in the Roadmap over the medium to long term (bullet point 1, page 83).
The dialogue sessions provide the opportunity to have the exchanges on the Roadmap that were not possible at COP30 due to the late release of the report. Properly organised, these dialogues could identify which recommendations have broad support and how their implementation can be connected to the UNFCCC process. The dialogues could act as a kind of filter for the most problematic components that prevented Parties doing more than just ‘noting’ the report at COP30. This will enable Parties to better act towards taking urgent actions towards scaling up finance for developing countries from all sources as decided in Paragraph 48 of the Mutirão Decision.
The role of another independent expert group, however, is less clear. Several expert groups have been convened on similar topics in recent years, including the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance (IHLEG), and the CoFM. It is particularly unclear what it would mean for such a group to ‘refine data’.
Overall, turning the B2BR into something of substance in the real world will require the COP30 Presidency to lean in much more than they did ahead of and at COP30 itself. The first half of 2026 is particularly important while they still largely hold the reigns before the COP31 Presidency team properly takes over.
Key next steps and opportunities for Brazil to advance the B2BR include:
1. Signal plans early for the dialogue sessions on the Roadmap and support inclusive participation. Ensure they are organised to deliver clear outcomes that support implementation and connection to the UNFCCC process;
2. Clarify and publish publicly the terms of references for the new expert group, ensuring it does not duplicate the recent work by similar bodies.
3. Articulate a coherent vision for the B2BR and the two additional roadmaps on transitioning away from fossil fuels and halting deforestation. Scaling up and redirecting finance flows to developing countries are key for both of these thematic objectives but the signals risk being diluted if the three roadmaps do not align;
4. Discuss the Roadmap’s recommendations during the Veredas Dialogue and Xingu Finance Talks in 2026 and encourage Parties to identify which elements are most relevant to implementing Article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement. These could be important starting points for future outputs from this negotiation workstream;
5. Bring forward the B2BR during related meetings outside the UNFCCC, including World Bank and IMF meetings and other global governance and financial policy environments. Many of the Roadmap’s recommendations go beyond the UNFCCC’s remit and require buy-in from external fora to be implemented;
