🔗 Share this article

The world is not winning the fight to combat the global warming emergency, yet it remains engaged in that conflict, the top UN climate official stated in the Brazilian city of Belém after a contentious Cop30 concluded with a pact.

Significant Developments from Cop30

Nations at Cop30 failed to bring the curtain down on the dependency on oil and gas, due to vocal dissent from certain nations led by the Saudi delegation. Moreover, they fell short on a key aspiration, established at a summit taking place in the Amazon rainforest, to chart an end to forest loss.

However, amid a fractious global era of nationalism, armed conflict, and suspicion, the discussions did not collapse as was feared. Global diplomacy prevailed – just.

“We were aware this conference was scheduled in stormy political waters,” remarked Simon Stiell, after a long and occasionally heated final plenary at the conference. “Refusal, division and geopolitics have delivered global collaboration significant setbacks over the past year.”

Yet the summit showed that “environmental collaboration is alive and kicking”, Stiell continued, alluding indirectly to the United States, which under Donald Trump chose to refrain from sending a delegation to Belém. The former US leader, who has labeled the global warming a “hoax” and a “scam”, has come to embody the resistance to advancement on addressing harmful climate change.

“I cannot claim we are prevailing in the battle against climate change. However we are undeniably still engaged, and we are resisting,” Stiell said.

“At this location, countries opted for cohesion, science and economic common sense. This year we have seen a lot of attention on a particular nation stepping back. But despite the gale-force political headwinds, 194 countries remained resolute in unity – rock-solid in support of environmental collaboration.”

Stiell highlighted a specific part of the Cop30 agreement: “The global transition towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible and the trend of the future.” He argued: “This is a diplomatic and economic message that cannot be ignored.”

Summit Proceedings

The summit commenced over two weeks back with the leaders’ summit. The Brazilian hosts promised with early sunny optimism that it would conclude on time, but as the negotiations went on, the uncertainty and obvious divisions among delegations increased, and the proceedings looked close to collapse by the end of the week. Overnight negotiations that day, however, and compromise from every party meant a deal was reached on Saturday. The conference yielded outcomes on dozens of issues, such as a commitment to triple adaptation funding to protect communities against climate impacts, an accord for a just transition mechanism (JTM), and recognition of the entitlements of Indigenous people.

Nevertheless proposals to begin developing strategic plans to transition away from oil, gas, and coal and end deforestation did not gain consensus, and were delegated to processes outside the UN to be advanced by coalitions of interested countries. The impacts of the agricultural sector – for example cattle in deforested areas in the rainforest – were mostly overlooked.

Feedback and Criticism

The overall package was largely seen as incremental in the best case, and significantly short than required to tackle the accelerating climate crisis. “The summit began with a surge of high hopes but ended with a whimper of disappointment,” said Jasper Inventor from Greenpeace International. “This was the moment to transition from negotiations to action – and it was missed.”

The UN secretary general, António Guterres, stated progress was made, but warned it was increasingly challenging to secure agreements. “Climate conferences are consensus-based – and in a time of international tensions, consensus is increasingly difficult to achieve. It would be dishonest to claim that this conference has provided everything that is needed. The disparity from where we are and what science demands remains alarmingly large.”

The European Union's representative for the environment, Wopke Hoekstra, echoed the feeling of satisfaction. “The outcome is imperfect, but it is a huge step in the correct path. Europe remained cohesive, advocating for ambition on climate action,” he stated, despite the fact that that unity was sorely tested.

Just reaching a pact was positive, said an analyst from Chatham House. “A summit failure would have been a major and harmful setback at the close of a period characterized by significant difficulties for global environmental efforts and international diplomacy more broadly. It is encouraging that a deal was concluded in the host city, although many will – legitimately – be dissatisfied with the level of ambition.”

However there was additionally significant discontent that, although adaptation finance had been committed, the target date had been delayed to the year 2035. Mamadou Ndong Toure from Practical Action in West Africa, said: “Climate resilience cannot be established on reduced pledges; people on the front lines require reliable, accountable assistance and a definite plan to act.”

Indigenous Rights and Fossil Fuel Disputes

Similarly, while the host nation styled the summit as the “Indigenous Cop” and the deal recognized for the first time Indigenous people’s land rights and knowledge as a essential climate solution, there were nonetheless worries that involvement was limited. “In spite of being called as an inclusive summit … it was evident that Indigenous peoples remain left out from the discussions,” said Emil Gualinga of the Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku.

And there was disappointment that the concluding document had avoided explicit mention to fossil fuels. James Dyke from the University of Exeter, noted: “Despite the organizers' best efforts, Cop30 failed to get nations to agree to fossil fuel phase out. This shameful outcome is the result of short-sighted agendas and cynical politicking.”

Activism and Prospects Ahead

After a number of years of these annual international environmental conferences hosted by authoritarian-led countries, there were bursts of colourful protest in the host city as activist groups returned in force. A major march with tens of thousands of protesters lit up the middle Saturday of the conference and activists expressed their views in an otherwise dull, formal Belém conference centre.

“Beginning with Indigenous-led demonstrations on site to the over seventy thousand individuals who marched in the streets, there was a palpable sense of momentum that I haven’t felt for years,” said an activist leader from an advocacy group.

Ultimately, concluded observers, a way forward exists. Prof Michael Grubb from University College London, commented: “The underwhelming result of an conclusion from the summit has underlined that a focus on the negative is fraught with diplomatic hurdles. Looking ahead to the next conference, the attention must be balanced by equal attention to the positive – the {huge economic potential|