With the COP 30 closing in Belem after a highly symbolic fire alert, it is a good time to reflect on the environmental taxation, and the stakes are extremely high.

After arduous negotiations, the COP parties have selected the site of the next global meeting, so COP 31 will be held next year in Antalya, with a dual presidency shared between Türkiye and Australia.

But let us review here these three keywords that I have chosen as title of this blog:

1. Mutirão:

The term “Mutirão” was adopted as the guiding theme and title for a key proposed decision text at COP30 by host Brazil. Originating from the Indigenous Tupi-Guarani language, Mutirão translates to “collective efforts” or a community coming together to work on a shared task.

In the context of COP30, Brazil used the term to call for a global Mutirão—a unified, collaborative effort and international cooperation among all countries to tackle climate change, especially around climate finance and strengthening national climate plans. The proposed Mutirão Decision attempted to address sticking points like finance and adaptation, though critics argued its language on fossil fuels was too weak.

2. BAM.

No, it is not about the song “What a Bam-Bam!” although it is also about a  big commotion indeed. The Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) is a proposed institutional arrangement under the UNFCCC, championed by civil society and the G77+China (the bloc of developing countries).

Its Objective: The Just Transition: BAM is designed to ensure a “Just Transition” to a low-carbon economy. This means making sure the shift away from fossil fuels is equitable, protecting the rights and livelihoods of workers and communities (especially in the Global South) who currently rely on polluting industries or are affected by the new extraction of transition minerals.

Its proponents argue that new tax mechanisms are needed to: Non-Debt-Creating Finance: Provide support for skills training, economic diversification, and social protection in transitioning communities. They hope to Mobilize New Finance: BAM discussions frequently involve calls for progressive environmental taxation, such as wealth taxes, financial transaction taxes, and taxes on fossil fuel corporate windfall profits, to generate the estimated $1.3 trillion annually needed for climate action and the Just Transition, particularly in developing countries. If adopted, the BAM would provide an institutional framework for coordinating and spending this revenue. It would prioritize non-debt inducing finance and ensure that climate-friendly technology is shared with developing countries to facilitate their energetic transition to clean energies. BAM has a strong Support from Developing Nations: The G77 and China coalition, collectively representing about 80% of the world’s population, announced unified support for establishing a global “just transition mechanism,” effectively backing these principles.

3. CBAM coming

The CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) has a different sound: It is  the European Union’s impending carbon tariff on imports of carbon-intensive goods. “CBAM Coming” refers here to its definitive, revenue-generating phase beginning in 2026.

CBAM is a major piece of European environmental taxation that impacts global trade and is designed to combat “carbon leakage.” Carbon leakage is when a country with stricter climate policies experiences an increase in its emissions outside its borders because companies move production to countries with less stringent regulations. This can undermine global efforts to reduce emissions, as the total reduction is offset by increased emissions elsewhere.

Currently (2023–2025), companies are only reporting emissions data. In 2026, they start the Charging Phase: The actual financial charge will be levied, requiring importers to pay a fee equivalent to the carbon price applied under the EU’s Emission Trading System (ETS). Its total revenue estimated is Around €1 billion per year on average over the period 2026–2030.

But this creates geopolitical Tension: the CBAM puts pressure on international trading partners to implement their own carbon pricing, or face tariffs, sparking debate over whether it is a legitimate climate measure or a protectionist trade barrier. The actual revenue collected will be determined by the price of CBAM certificates, which is directly pegged to the weekly average auction price of EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) allowances (in €/ton of CO2).

The tension between the EU’s CBAM (The North’s new taxation mechanism) and the call for the Mutirão/BAM (The collaborative justice mechanism demanded by most developing countries), showing that environmental taxation is now at the heart of the global climate justice debate. More negotiations are needed to  determine if, and how, the two mechanisms will cohabit.

4. The highly needed progress towards Unified Environmental Reporting

A major source of frustration for all, but more for developing countries and small states, like Panama. Among others, the chief negotiator of Panama complained about the excessive multiplicity of reporting formats—involving the making of 45 types of annual reports across various Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) like the CBD, CITES, Ramsar, UNFCCC, etc. This criticism is very well-founded. It affects all countries, but it severely drains the limited capacities of the smaller nations.

And yes, there is significant, coordinated progress toward unification, but we are still adding layers of bureaucratic diversity at the same time.

Example of progress: Harmonization of corporate and financial disclosure.

Its starting point: the creation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). ISSB standards are designed to create a single global benchmark for sustainability-related financial reporting, effectively consolidating several previous frameworks.

Another example is the Consolidated Reporting Template: Regional organizations have developed this template for biodiversity-related Multilateral Agreements (like the CBD, CITES, Ramsar, CMS, and WHC). The goal is for a country to fill out one national report instead of five separate ones, reducing duplication and saving time and resources.

Despite this progress, the bureaucratic layering continues for two main reasons: There are  New Global Agreements: Every new major international agreement—such as the recent Global Biodiversity Framework (and the subsequent need for new national strategies and reports) or a future Global Plastics Treaty—introduces new, specific reporting requirements tailored to its unique objectives, adding a new layer to the national reporting stack.

The retroactive unification is difficult: While new standards (like the ISSB) are built to align with older ones, the Secretariats of the many existing MEAs operate independently and are often slow to formally adopt a shared, standardized format, leaving the reporting burden on the national environmental agencies until that approval is achieved.

In conclusion, the retroactive unification of reporting standards remains difficult: while new frameworks such as the ISSB aim to align with older ones, the Secretariats of existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) operate independently and are often slow to adopt shared formats. Until that harmonization occurs, the reporting burden falls disproportionately on national environmental agencies, as illustrated by Panama’s need to prepare dozens of separate reports each year.

This complexity is at the heart of the tension between BAM and CBAM. While CBAM is probably an efficient environmental measure, for many developing countries it represents an additional layer of bureaucracy and a non-tariff trade barrier. Compliance requires exporters to measure and verify embedded carbon emissions at a granular level—far beyond typical national reporting—according to EU methodologies. Without adequate technical and financial support, this burden risks transforming CBAM from an environmental incentive into an equity challenge, undermining its goal of global decarbonization.

Following COP30, negotiators reached only a partial consensus: a coalition of countries will work toward a clearer roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels in the coming months, while others resisted binding timelines, leaving the global transition fragmented. 80 countries or more are supporting the roadmap and will gather at a “phase-Out of Fossil Fuels” conference planned for April 28-29, 2026, in Santa Marta, Colombia. This outcome reinforces the urgency of coupling trade-related climate measures with robust capacity-building and harmonized reporting frameworks. Among many other challenges, the countries must work to ensure that climate ambition is based on shared responsibility and practical pathways for all economies.

References:

– COP30 Just Transition and BAM: https://unfccc.int/cop30

-Impact of CBAM on developing countries: https://feps-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Impact-of-CBAM.pdf

– COP 30 and trade tensions: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2025/11/20/cop30-overshadowed-by-trade-tensions-how-to-collaborate-on-decarbonization-while-protecting-economic-interests_6747654_114.html

– Multiplicity of information load  https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1085936/full
– Interview Juan Carlos Monterrey: https://www.instagram.com/reels/audio/1671907183517490/

31 total views, 20 views today