The decade-long alliance between developed countries led by the European Union (EU) and the developing countries most vulnerable to climate change – including small island states and the world’s poorest countries – frayed at COP30 in Belém, with both sides expressing disappointment.

On the penultimate day of talks, the EU said it would only offer more finance to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change if there was an agreement to strengthen and speed up implementation of national climate plans, including a transition away from fossil fuels in the decision text.

This approach angered several negotiators from developing countries, who said efforts to cope with extreme weather and rising seas were too important to be traded off in this manner.

After COP, Least Developed Countries (LDC) negotiator Manjeet Dhakal told Climate Home News that adaptation was “not something to trade”. His native Nepal, for example, needs funding to put in place measures like early warning systems for flooding from glacial lakes and river floods, he said.

On the other side, EU negotiators accused climate-vulnerable countries of not giving strong enough support to Europe’s push for a roadmap away from fossil fuels.

Danish climate minister Lars Aagaard told a post-COP podcast in Danish that small islands and others had only supported the EU “in a half-assed way”.

This signals a weakening of the close relationship between the two sides that was cemented at COP21 in 2015 when they stood firmly together in the push for the Paris Agreement to include the lower global warming limit of 1.5C, as partners in what was dubbed the “High Ambition Coalition”.

Adaptation and fossil fuels linked

In Belém, after two weeks of late-night talks, governments at COP30 could only agree to a vague goal of at least tripling adaptation finance by 2035 and – instead of launching work on a fossil fuel roadmap – to create a “Global Implementation Accelerator” which may or may not include such a roadmap at some point in the future.

To get things started, Brazil’s COP30 president said he would draft a voluntary roadmap outside of the UN climate process.

Developed countries resisted a more ambitious call to triple adaptation finance by 2030 to $120 billion a year. The EU noted that an overall climate finance goal – of $300bn a year by 2035 – had been agreed only last year at COP29 and said they did not want to set an additional goal outside of its scope.

At the same time, a coalition of around 80 countries was pushing for COP30 to agree to launch a roadmap away from fossil fuels. This coalition included both developed and developing nations – particularly many LDCs, small islands and Latin American nations.

On the second Friday morning of the talks, the EU’s top climate official Wopke Hoekstra linked the two issues, telling a closed-door meeting of ministers: “if we deliver on the mitigation [emissions reductions] here together, yes you can ask the EU to move beyond its comfort zone on the financing of adaptation”.

Later that day, the African Group’s lead negotiator Richard Muyungi put out a statement saying that “some want [tripling of adaptation finance] deleted unless we trade it for a fossil-fuel phase-out deal. That is unacceptable. Adaptation is a right, not a bargaining chip.” He added: “This is an implementation COP, the continent has compromised enough. Africa will not leave with nothing.”

Thibyan Ibrahim, a negotiator for the alliance of small island states (AOSIS), told Climate Home News that climate-vulnerable countries were “disappointed and frustrated that developed countries aren’t taking the initiative to fill the gap in leadership after the withdrawal of the US”.

“While they [the rest] are not leaving the Paris Agreement, it is frustrating to see rolling back of ambition and commitments, rather than stepping up and becoming a partner of choice for developing countries,” the Maldivian negotiator said.

“Half-assed” support from small islands

On the other side, some EU negotiators expressed disappointment in the LDCs and AOSIS, accusing them of not being vocal enough in supporting a roadmap away from fossil fuels – something both groups deny.

Lars Aagaard, the climate minister from Denmark who led the EU’s negotiations, told the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR) in Danish that “those who normally support us” like the “small island states etcetera” only stood up for us “in a half-assed way” on moving away from fossil fuels. He added that the EU could “feel that the alliances that were there before were not so strong”.

He speculated that the US may have played a role in making countries that would normally support the EU on fossil fuels “conspicuously silent”. In October, after US threats to restrict visas and sanction nations, many Caribbean countries voted with the US and Saudi Arabia to postpone a green shipping deal at the International Maritime Organization in London. The US did not send an official delegation to COP30.

Former Colombian environment minister Susana Muhamad told a Climate Home News event halfway through COP30 that “we have countries in the Caribbean that have been leaders on the finance that cannot speak any more globally about [it] because they have been threatened” by the US.

Some negotiators and observers have said the EU could have got more support for a fossil fuel transition roadmap if the bloc had come with a compelling offer on adaptation finance. But Aagaard dismissed this argument, telling DR in Danish: “There is not a day on Earth when I give any money to Tuvalu or Jamaica, then the Saudis think ‘Oh, how sweet they are… now I vote for us to get off fossil fuels’.”

Some LDC and AOSIS negotiators also denied that their support for a fossil fuel transition plan would have been stronger with more adaptation money on the table. “Not necessarily,” said AOSIS’s Ibrahim while the LDCs’ Dhakal said both mitigation and adaptation are important, and Sierra Leone’s environment minister Jiwoh Abdulai insisted “the two are not mutually exclusive for us”.

But Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said that at both COP29 and COP30 there had been a “disenchanted vulnerable group of countries”, adding “this dynamic is likely to persist if Western nations remain distracted from climate finance”.

“Faced with diminishing climate aid from the West and the availability of cheap solar panels from China, they are likely to find the latter far more attractive,” he added.

The lesson Aagaard said he had taken from COP30 was that Europe needs to pursue its own interests more relentlessly and not be naive. “The thing about being the moral one and doing the right thing and hoping that others will follow suit – that dream has pretty much been wrecked for me,” he told DR.

The post EU alliance with climate-vulnerable nations frays over finance trade-off appeared first on Climate Home News.

EU alliance with climate-vulnerable nations frays over finance trade-off