{"id":6856,"date":"2025-11-28T17:05:41","date_gmt":"2025-11-28T17:05:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/cop30-informal-roadmap-opponents\/"},"modified":"2025-11-28T17:05:41","modified_gmt":"2025-11-28T17:05:41","slug":"cop30-informal-roadmap-opponents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/cop30-informal-roadmap-opponents\/","title":{"rendered":"Leak reveals errors in COP30 informal list of fossil\u2011fuel roadmap opponents"},"content":{"rendered":"<article>\n<p>At the close of COP30 in Bel\u00e9m, a leaked, presidency-drawn \u201cinformal list\u201d claiming 84 countries opposed adding a fossil\u2011fuel transition roadmap to the summit outcome has been shown to contain multiple contradictions and likely mistakes. Carbon Brief obtained the list and found 14 countries named on both supporter and opposer lists, the full membership of the least\u2011developed countries (LDCs) listed as opponents despite LDC leadership saying they did not block the idea, and at least one country on the list\u2014Turkey\u2014denying it opposed the roadmap. The row contributed to the Brazilian presidency concluding there was no path to consensus on including a roadmap in the formal COP30 decision.<\/p>\n<h2>Key takeaways<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The leaked \u201cinformal list\u201d compiled by the COP30 presidency identifies 84 countries labelled as opposing a fossil\u2011fuel transition roadmap; Carbon Brief\u2019s review finds internal inconsistencies and probable errors.<\/li>\n<li>Fourteen countries appear on both the proponents\u2019 and opponents\u2019 lists, reflecting membership overlaps across negotiating blocs rather than clear national positions.<\/li>\n<li>All 42 LDCs present in Bel\u00e9m\u2014except Afghanistan and Myanmar who were absent\u2014appear on the opponents\u2019 list, though LDC chair advisers say the group did not oppose the roadmap.<\/li>\n<li>Two negotiating blocs\u2014the 22\u2011member Arab group and the 25\u2011member LMDCs\u2014make up roughly 39 of the opposers, though member positions within those blocs varied.<\/li>\n<li>Supporters\u2019 reporting points to an 85\u2011strong supporters list (including Australia); the presidency told negotiators there were \u201c80 for and 80 against\u201d during late negotiations, a figure participants later questioned.<\/li>\n<li>Notable entries on the opposers\u2019 list include Russia, several fossil\u2011fuel\u2011dependent economies, and three EU members (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary), some of which had prior public stances factored into the tally.<\/li>\n<li>Brazil announced it will pursue roadmaps on fossil fuels and deforestation under its own presidency initiative after concluding consensus in the COP plenary was impossible.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Background<\/h2>\n<p>COP28 (Dubai, 2023) finalised the first global stocktake and called for collective action, including efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. Negotiations since then\u2014through COP29 in Baku and into COP30\u2014have struggled to convert that collective aspiration into agreed processes or language under the UN climate regime. Ahead of COP30, Brazil\u2019s president Luiz In\u00e1cio Lula da Silva unexpectedly called for \u201croadmaps\u201d on transitioning from fossil fuels and on halting and reversing deforestation, elevating the idea into central discussions in Bel\u00e9m even though it was not on the formal agenda.<\/p>\n<p>Because COP decisions rely on consensus, the presidency pursued informal consultations to gauge whether a roadmap could be adopted in the final \u201cmutir\u00e3o\u201d package. In late, closed-door sessions during the summit\u2019s final hours, the Brazilian presidency told delegates there was no prospect of agreement because positions were sharply divided\u2014summarised to negotiators as \u201c80 for and 80 against.\u201d That claim\u2014repeated in private meetings\u2014became a focal point for media and delegate scrutiny after the summit.<\/p>\n<h2>Main event<\/h2>\n<p>During the closing phase of COP30, Carbon Brief obtained two separate lists: a supporters\u2019 list that was circulated earlier and an 84\u2011country \u201cinformal\u201d list compiled by the presidency indicating opposers. The supporters\u2019 list\u2014later reported at 85 countries\u2014largely comprised negotiating alliances such as AOSIS, the Environmental Integrity Group, AILAC and the EU. Opposers\u2019 names were filled out after a meeting of roughly 50 delegations and supplemented by membership rolls of negotiating blocs, producing the 84\u2011name tally.<\/p>\n<p>Carbon Brief\u2019s scrutiny of the opposers\u2019 list uncovered at least three categories of problems. First, 14 countries are named on both lists\u2014an outcome of overlapping bloc memberships but one that makes the lists unreliable as a straightforward tally of national positions. Second, the opposers\u2019 list appears to contain the full set of 42 LDCs that were present in Bel\u00e9m (excluding Afghanistan and Myanmar), even though the LDC chair\u2019s office says the group did not oppose the roadmap and publicly signalled support for urgent action to keep 1.5C within reach. Third, individual entries such as Turkey\u2019s were contested: Turkey, agreed to host COP31, told Carbon Brief that its listing as an opposer was \u201cwrong.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Two negotiating blocs formed the bulk of the opposers: the 22\u2011member Arab group, chaired in Bel\u00e9m by Saudi Arabia, and the LMDCs, with 25 members chaired by India. Reporting from the International Institute for Sustainable Development\u2019s Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) corroborates that both blocs resisted proscriptive or prescriptive language on a fossil\u2011fuel roadmap during the talks, but delegates within and outside those blocs gave varied reasons for their stances, from concerns about national development pathways to demands for finance and just transition measures.<\/p>\n<h2>Analysis &amp; implications<\/h2>\n<p>The leak and its flaws illustrate the limits of informal intelligence gathering during high\u2011stakes multilateral diplomacy. Compilers of the opposers\u2019 list appear to have merged statements made in closed sessions, pre\u2011existing national positions, and negotiating\u2011bloc membership rolls\u2014creating a snapshot that mixed real-time objections with longer\u2011standing alignments. That approach risks mischaracterising positions, feeding media narratives of clear \u201cblockers,\u201d and hardening diplomatic stances that might otherwise be negotiated.<\/p>\n<p>Politically, the confusion reinforces long\u2011standing tensions between calls for firm, prescriptive global measures and developing countries\u2019 insistence on nationally determined pathways and compensatory finance. Many developing delegations emphasised adaptation, just transition, and financial support as prerequisites for endorsing any prescriptive fossil\u2011fuel phaseout language. The presence of fossil\u2011fuel exporters and right\u2011leaning governments among the named opposers is consistent with those states\u2019 prior reluctance to commit to rapid, externally mandated phaseouts.<\/p>\n<p>For the COP process, the episode reduces trust in presidency\u2011driven informal tallies and underscores the procedural fragility of consensus decision\u2011making. If presidencies rely on informal, unverified lists to declare the impossibility of consensus, they may be precluding compromise pathways. Brazil\u2019s decision to advance roadmaps under its own initiative may keep momentum alive, but it also shifts key choices outside the formal COP decision text, potentially weakening obligations and widening the gap between rhetoric and binding collective action.<\/p>\n<p>Internationally, the misreporting or miscounting of positions can fuel misleading media narratives that a small set of countries \u201cblocked\u201d progress, obscuring the heterogeneous reasons behind opposition and the conditional nature of many countries\u2019 concerns. That reductionist framing complicates public accountability and distracts attention from practical bargaining lines\u2014finance, timelines, worker transitions, and differentiated responsibilities\u2014that will determine whether a credible, equitable transition path can be devised.<\/p>\n<figure>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Metric<\/th>\n<th>Count \/ detail<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Opposers (informal leaked list)<\/td>\n<td>84 countries<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Supporters (list reported)<\/td>\n<td>85 countries<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Countries on both lists<\/td>\n<td>14 countries<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>LDCs present in Bel\u00e9m<\/td>\n<td>42 nations (all listed as opposers in leak)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Africa group membership<\/td>\n<td>54 members; 37 named on opposers\u2019 list<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n<p>These numbers show how small discrepancies in counting and the inclusion of bloc memberships can materially change perceptions about consensus on contested texts. The table does not resolve which individual countries actually voiced opposition in plenary, but it highlights the gulf between an informal tally and a recorded negotiating record such as the ENB summaries.<\/p>\n<h2>Reactions &amp; quotes<\/h2>\n<p>Key negotiators and observers reacted to the leak and its consequences in different ways, highlighting procedural and substantive concerns.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&#8220;It is not correct that the LDCs, as a bloc, opposed a fossil\u2011fuel roadmap during COP30 negotiations.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><cite>Manjeet Dhakal, Lead adviser to the LDC chair (statement to Carbon Brief)<\/cite>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Dhakal emphasised that the LDC group had publicly framed a transition away from fossil fuels as an urgent action to keep 1.5C within reach, and that some LDC members\u2014such as Nepal\u2014supported the roadmap proposal.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&#8220;Its inclusion on that list is wrong.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><cite>Turkish delegation spokesperson (comment to Carbon Brief)<\/cite>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Turkey, which will co\u2011preside over COP31, denied opposing the roadmap and called its appearance among opposers a mistake\u2014an exchange that highlights how errors in an informal list can have diplomatic repercussions.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&#8220;We know some of you had greater ambitions&#8230; we need roadmaps so that humanity, in a just and planned manner, can overcome its dependence on fossil fuels.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><cite>Andr\u00e9 Corr\u00eaa do Lago, COP30 president (closing plenary remarks)<\/cite>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Corr\u00eaa do Lago announced Brazil would develop two roadmaps\u2014on deforestation and on transitioning away from fossil fuels\u2014through high\u2011level dialogues and a Colombian conference in April, signalling a presidency workaround after failing to secure consensus in the COP text.<\/p>\n<aside>\n<details>\n<summary>Explainer: why negotiating blocs matter<\/summary>\n<p>In UN climate diplomacy, countries often act within negotiating blocs\u2014groups that coordinate positions for efficiency and influence. Common blocs include AOSIS (small island states), the LDCs, the African Group, the LMDCs, and the Arab Group. Because many countries belong to more than one bloc, a matrix of memberships can create apparent contradictions when lists are compiled from bloc rosters rather than individual, contemporaneous statements. Negotiating blocs enable joint strategy, but they also mask diverse national priorities, making aggregate counts a blunt instrument for assessing consensus.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n<\/aside>\n<h2>Unconfirmed<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The presidency\u2019s repeated claim of &#8220;80 for and 80 against&#8221; the roadmap has not been substantiated by a documented roll call of national positions and remains unverified.<\/li>\n<li>It is unconfirmed whether the LDCs were deliberately included on the opposers\u2019 list due to an administrative error or as a result of automatic bloc\u2011based filling; LDC leadership disputes the characterization.<\/li>\n<li>The precise motives of every country listed as an opposer\u2014whether ideological, economic, or tactical\u2014are not fully documented in the leaked list and require country\u2011by\u2011country confirmation.<\/li>\n<li>Reports that all 54 members of the Africa Group aligned with the Arab Group on opposing the roadmap are inconsistent with multiple African delegates\u2019 public comments and remain partially unverified.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Bottom line<\/h2>\n<p>The leaked informal list from COP30 highlights how informal tallying and bloc\u2011based compilation can create misleading impressions of who blocked what at multilateral talks. The substantive disagreements around a fossil\u2011fuel roadmap are real, but the lists released or leaked during the summit mixed overlapping bloc memberships, pre\u2011existing national stances and contemporaneous objections\u2014producing a snapshot that cannot be read as a definitive record of who blocked the COP30 outcome.<\/p>\n<p>For future presidencies and observers, the episode is a prompt to prioritize transparent, contemporaneous recording of positions and to avoid reliance on unverified, bloc\u2011aggregated lists when declaring the prospects for consensus. Brazil\u2019s choice to pursue roadmaps outside the formal COP text keeps the idea alive, but it also shifts critical decisions onto new processes whose inclusivity, level of ambition and linkage to finance and just transition measures will determine whether they deliver meaningful, equitable outcomes.<\/p>\n<h2>Sources<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.carbonbrief.org\/revealed-leak-casts-doubt-on-cop30s-informal-list-of-fossil-fuel-roadmap-opponents\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Carbon Brief<\/a> (original reporting and leaked lists)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/enb.iisd.org\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Earth Negotiations Bulletin (IISD)<\/a> (official UN negotiations summary\/observer reporting)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Guardian<\/a> (media reporting on summit dynamics)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Reuters<\/a> (news agency coverage)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.afp.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Agence France\u2011Presse (AFP)<\/a> (news agency)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ft.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Financial Times<\/a> (media analysis)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Bloomberg<\/a> (business news coverage)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.climatechangenews.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Climate Home News<\/a> (environment reporting)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.actionaidusa.org\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ActionAid USA<\/a> (civil society commentary)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinadaily.com.cn\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">China Daily<\/a> (state\u2011run media commentary)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>At the close of COP30 in Bel\u00e9m, a leaked, presidency-drawn \u201cinformal list\u201d claiming 84 countries opposed adding a fossil\u2011fuel transition roadmap to the summit outcome has been shown to contain multiple contradictions and likely mistakes. Carbon Brief obtained the list and found 14 countries named on both supporter and opposer lists, the full membership of &#8230; <a title=\"Leak reveals errors in COP30 informal list of fossil\u2011fuel roadmap opponents\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/cop30-informal-roadmap-opponents\/\" aria-label=\"Read more about Leak reveals errors in COP30 informal list of fossil\u2011fuel roadmap opponents\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6850,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rank_math_title":"Leak reveals errors in COP30 opponents list | Carbon Brief","rank_math_description":"A leaked COP30 \u2018informal list\u2019 naming 84 opponents of a fossil\u2011fuel roadmap contains contradictions\u201414 countries appear on both lists and LDCs were mischaracterised.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"COP30,fossil-fuel roadmap,informal list,LMDCs,LDCs","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6856","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6856\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}