The contrast between a symbolic setting and a minimalist agreement
COP30 brings together 194 States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Belém–a Brazilian city facing chronic flooding, air pollution and social inequality–is a powerful symbol: that holding COP30 in the heart of the world’s largest forest basin echoes the climate emergency for coordinated action, at a time when the United Nations (UN) (2024) considers it “virtually impossible” to “limit global warming” to one point five degree Celsius.
However, the final agreement stays focused on financing climate action and implementing the Paris Climate Agreement (2015). Paradoxically, it remains cautious about phasing out fossil fuels. This omission is considered “incomprehensible” by politicians and “dangerous” by several non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The French Minister for Ecological Transition, Monique Barbut, refers to it as an “agreement without ambition”.
Climate finance: significant progress, but still insufficient
The main challenge is to consolidate a global financial plan aimed at helping developing countries transition to more eco-responsible economies. This involves raising $1.3 trillion in public-private funding per year by 2035, doubling adaptation funding by 2025 (then tripling it by 2035), and operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund (created at COP28). Developing countries are largely dependent on fossil fuels, which – although often inexpensive – have a huge long-term impact on the climate.
Nevertheless, beneficiary countries believe that additional financial commitments are needed to enable their energy transition. This is all the more so given that many observers deplore the vague targets, with no specific deadlines or legal obligations (which is nothing new for climate conferences). In a context of intensifying climate risks, the lack of solid guarantees in the global financial plan raises significant doubts about its real effectiveness.
The notable absence: the phase-out of fossil fuels
One of the main markers of COP30 is the absence of any explicit mention of phasing out fossil fuels. Although 80 countries want to establish a roadmap (supported by intergovernmental experts) to plan for the gradual phase-out of coal, oil and gas, this has failed to achieve consensus and be adopted. In fact, several fossil fuel-producing countries – China, India, etc .– strongly opposed it, blocking any binding wording.
Several environmental NGOs have also strongly criticised the presence of more than 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists, arguing that they significantly weaken the conclusiveness of negotiations to limit global temperature rise. The COP President, André Corrêa do Lago, acknowledged this lack of climate ambition, promising to prepare two voluntary roadmaps: one on combating deforestation, the other on a fair transition away from fossil fuels. Yet, their voluntary nature considerably limits their scope.
Indigenous protests: tensions between rhetoric and reality
Brazil has officially proposed hosting COP30 in the Amazon to put its indigenous peoples at the centre of decision-making. Indeed, indigenous territories in tropical forests have significantly lower deforestation rates than other areas, mainly thanks to their effective conservation methods. Although, on the ground, COP 30 has been marked by serious clashes: access blocked by indigenous leaders, demonstrations for effective land rights, and interruptions to discussions (including one caused independently by a fire near the site).
Their demands are mainly against mining, agribusiness and deforestation–for land guarantees, recognition of decision-making power and protection of inclusive institutions. Nonetheless, the final agreement does not include any structural measures in this regard, while voluntary commitments are considered insufficient. This dissonance between symbolic discourse and political realities has led various NGOs and activist groups to consider COP30 a “sham of climate justice”.
Multilateralism: between resilience and exhaustion
For its political representatives, COP30 proves that multilateralism still holds: UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the continuation of international dialogue, stating that “no country can solve the defining challenges alone”. But the consensus required by the UNFCCC has one consequence: a single country can weaken the final text, which systematically limits collective ambition. This logic explains why COP30 is struggling to tackle the heart of the problem, namely the strategic reduction of polluting emissions.
Another critical point is that only 40 per cent of countries have submitted their new national plans (NDCs), which have been mandatory every five years since the Paris Agreement, while the United States was not present at all. These political shortcomings are therefore undermining the credibility of a supranational system amid “turbulent geopolitical waters” (according to UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell) marked by polarization and climate denialism.
Beyond negotiations: a parallel action programme
The Brazilian Presidency emphasised that the success of COP30 goes beyond the agreements negotiated through waves of voluntary commitments under the action programme. These include: $5.5 billion for the International Fund for Tropical Forest Conservation, with (at least) 20 per cent of resources allocated directly to indigenous peoples and local communities, and the $300 million Belém Health Action Plan–the first global initiative targeting climate-related health threats.
In addition, the Utilities for Net Zero Alliance (UNEZA) alliance, in which public service companies have committed to contributing $66 billion per year to renewable energy and $82 billion to energy transition, while a coalition of cities, regions and businesses has declared that it will reduce its CO₂ emissions by more than 850,000 tonnes by 2024. Countries have also agreed to put in place just transition mechanisms, although these are limited by their lack of integration into the international legal framework.
The COP of truth, or disillusionment?
Although Brazilian President Lula da Silva presented COP30 as the “COP of truth”, it mainly revealed the growing gap between scientific urgency and diplomatic caution, the limitations of the UN system in constraining the major fossil fuel lobbies, and the difficulty of placing climate justice at the heart of international mechanisms.
Admittedly, COP30 did result in several major decisions and launched important voluntary initiatives. But the absence of any reference to phasing out fossil fuels deeply tarnishes its main political and economic signals. As António Guterres reminds us: “COP30 is over, but our work is not.”
Conclusion: A partially missed opportunity
COP30 in Belém leaves us with mixed feelings: while the Amazon is central to global climate discourse, its future remains just as uncertain. The summit may pave the way for a renewed approach to climate justice, but its proceedings reveal how difficult it is to translate international promises into structural change.
With 2024 set to be the first year in which global temperatures will exceed the one point five degree Celsius threshold on a sustained basis, the question remains: is this a conference that could usher in historic change, or a major disappointment – masking institutional inertia, political contradictions and deeply entrenched industrial interests?
The answer depends on the ability of states, supranational institutions, but also social movements, researchers and civil societies – in Brazil and elsewhere – to demand climate governance that is truly aligned with scientific imperatives and the rights of the people who live in, protect and depend on the Amazon.
