Details
During the last two weeks, international climate diplomacy came together for the 30th UN climate conference, COP30, in the Amazon. Marking 10 years since the Paris Agreement was achieved, this year’s climate change negotiations were a litmus test as to whether international cooperation was still viable. Throughout the negotiations, the Brazilian Presidency went to great lengths to stress the importance of UN-based multilateralism, recognizing the cruciality of international cooperation for tackling global issues like climate change as part of sustainable development and poverty-eradication efforts.
Indeed, COP30 got off to a flying start for the Brazilian Presidency who announced the establishment of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) during the World Leader’s Summit at the opening of the negotiations. Billed as a key protection mechanism for the world’s tropical rainforests, the fund is intended to create financial reward for forest protection. However, some have noted that much of the money used to reward forest protection ultimately comes from Global South countries themselves through debt servicing and payments to international investors. Investments in loans and bonds are also not risk-free due to potential financial crashes, currency crises, or political instability. Were the fund to collapse, taxpayers may end up covering private losses.
David Williams directs the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Climate Justice Programme in New York.
Tetet Lauron lives in the Philippines and works as a consultant to the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s New York Office.
Katja Voigt is the Senior Advisor for Climate Policy at the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.
While the support of forest protectors is needed, this raises serious concerns about the financialization of nature and neocolonial power structures that give institutions in the Global North disproportionate control over ecosystems in the Global South. These issues did not deter the Brazilian government however, and the World Bank has already agreed to host the facility.
The Long Shadow of Baku
A far more equitable solution than facilities like the TFFF is the guaranteed and meaningful provision of climate finance to the countries and communities on the front lines of forest protection. Yet at last year’s COP29 in Baku, Global North countries shirked their responsibilities and pushed through a climate finance agreement that fell far short of what Global South countries were entitled to.
Although some progress was made in clarifying what constitutes adaptation, Global North countries repeatedly resisted any commitments that went beyond the inadequate climate finance goal agreed in Baku.
Although last year’s outcome specified how much would be provided, it did not clearly specify who was responsible for providing it. Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement states that climate finance should be provided by the Global North for the Global South. To advance this implementation, Global South countries proposed a two-year work programme to help operationalize this critical element of the Paris Agreement. Ultimately, Global North countries accepted the proposal, but only on the condition that it would not alter any part of last year’s climate finance agreement. As a result, the climate finance agreed at COP30 remains far short of what science, escalating climate impacts, the legal obligations under the Paris Agreement, and the International Court of Justice’s recent advisory opinion require.
The long shadow of Baku stretched over Belém on numerous issues. Amongst them adaptation, of vital importance for countries grappling with floods, storms, droughts, and other climate-induced extreme events. Many of these same countries are also mired in a debt crisis, forced to divert substantial portions of their annual budgets to debt servicing rather than to education or health. This is why the quality of climate finance is so critical for adaptation, in addition to quantity. When support is provided primarily as loans (currently around two-thirds of all climate finance) it only compounds the debt burdens of countries with already limited fiscal space. And although some progress was made in clarifying what constitutes adaptation, Global North countries repeatedly resisted any commitments that went beyond the inadequate climate finance goal agreed in Baku.
Finance was also central to the main dispute that drew attention, defining viable decarbonization pathways. Unfortunately, agreement could not be reached on a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. While there was support from EU member states, small island states and several Latin-American countries, it did not garner sufficient backing from the Arab Group or the rest of G77, the group respresenting most of the countries from the Global South in the UN system. The key reason for this was the lack of any financial support mechanism from Global North countries. The proposal by the EU was seen as a smokescreen by some, as without finance the implementation of such a roadmap would remain illusionary. However, after a sustained push from civil society and Global South countries, the creation of a just transition mechanism was accepted. The outcome is one of the more promising of recent COPs, with the mechanism grounded in human and labor rights, as well as equity and inclusion.
Another controversial issue being discussed was trade. The EU in particular was being accused of green protectionism for its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which is due to go into effect next year. For some countries, the EU is a key export market, and the African continent stands to lose up to 25 billion US dollars annually as a consequence of CBAM. Negotiations on the Gender Action Plan also became contentious as several governments, including Russia, Argentina and Paraguay, were pushing to narrow the definition of “gender”, a move critics say would roll back decades of UN language and weaken effective climate action. While the US did not send a delegation, they were certainly there in spirit.
Outside the Official Negotiations
Beyond the formal negotiations, several developments stood out. The Colombian government announced that it will host a conference in April 2026 in Santa Marta to chart a pathway for phasing out fossil fuels, inviting politicians, policymakers, and civil society from across the world to join the effort. Brazil quickly echoed the initiative, proposing a similar roadmap of its own, along with an additional plan focused on tackling deforestation. Because the formal negotiations failed to reach agreement on these key issues, the pathways will now move outside the UN framework and will therefore not carry the support of all 195 countries. These roadmaps were announced despite fossil-fuel lobbyists outnumbering all COP30 delegations (except Brazil), a problem the UNFCCC appears unwilling to confront.
In contrast to German leadership, Belém opened its arms not only to international diplomats preparing for COP30, but also to civil society groups convening for the People’s Summit.
The diplomatic row around who would host next year’s COP ended in an impressive gymnastic act, with pre-COP to be held in the Pacific, Australia to lead the negotiations, and Turkey to be the host country. And then of course there was Friedrich Merz committing a social face-plant in suggesting Germans would never want to stay permanently in Belem. While it’s difficult to tell whether this had any impact on the formal negotiations, it certainly put German diplomats and civil society at a loss for explanation.
In contrast to German leadership, Belém opened its arms not only to international diplomats preparing for COP30, but also to civil society groups convening for the People’s Summit (Cúpula dos Povos), a four-day alternative forum hosted at the Federal University of Pará. Communities from across Pará, Indigenous peoples, Brazilian organizations, and campaigners from all regions of Brazil came together alongside international activists for a rich program of plenaries, workshops, and cultural events. Their discussions culminated in a collective political declaration, which was formally presented to Minister of the Environment and Climate Change of Brazil, Marina Silva, and COP President, André Corrêa do Lago.
From the Summit to the Streets
The Cúpula dos Povos included a fulminant march through Belém which drew more than 70,000 participants. This shared space was not just a summit, it was a collective intake of solidarity. A space to exchange alternatives to a system built on destruction and exploitation, to speak honestly about the struggles many face, and to highlight resistance strategies already being built on the ground. Throughout the week, several Indigenous-led protests also reminded attendees what real resistance looks like, and who stands on the frontlines of the climate crisis.
The real disappointment is that the leaders of wealthy nations failed to match the example set by the people of Belém.
COP30 appears more likely to offer yet another round of incremental steps rather than the pivotal shift multilateralism needs for our collective survival. What is clear however, is that after months of scrutiny over its suitability as a host, Belém delivered. The real disappointment is that the leaders of wealthy nations failed to match the example set by the people of Belém.
