The large Guamá River and forty-two metropolitan islands frame the city of Belém, which is known as the gateway to the Amazon rainforest. Belém is shaped by the diversity of its indigenous and Afro-Brazilian cultures, as well as by the daily challenges posed by climate change, including severe flooding and extreme heat.
Ten years after the Paris Climate Agreement, in which country leaders pledged to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) was held here for the first time this month. Amid geopolitical turmoil, COP30 aimed to highlight the connection between natural wealth and climate vulnerability.
The conference sought to encourage the international community to prevent the alarming warming of the planet by up to 3 degrees Celsius by 2050, as calculated by scientists, while also supporting developing countries in adapting to the devastating consequences and losses they are already facing. With the Trump administration not sending a delegation to COP30, it fell to others to shoulder responsibility for the climate crisis.
With over 56,000 delegates attending over the course of two weeks, COP30 in Belém was one of the largest COPs in history. As the “COP of truth,” it was also intended to counter fake news and climate change denial among the global right, led by US president Donald Trump. Given the absence of the United States, the decline in commitments, and the limited participation of civil society in negotiations in Baku, Dubai, and Sharm El Sheikh in recent years, the host country, Brazil, was under significant pressure.
Amid geopolitical turmoil, COP30 aimed to highlight the connection between natural wealth and climate vulnerability.
At the same time, international and national media reports complaining about location and accommodation prices in the buildup revealed prejudice against the poor region. In fact, COP30 began remarkably well-prepared, demonstrating Brazil’s exceptional diplomatic skill: unlike many conferences, the agenda was agreed upon quickly. It set out a series of mutirões (from mutirão, a Tupi–Guarani word meaning collective effort for the common good) on the key issues of this COP: implementation, adaptation, and integration of climate policy and economic development based on scientific findings.
From the outset, the summit demonstrated the strength of the indigenous and traditional movements of the Pan-Amazon region. Groups arrived on several flotillas and organized the Cupula dos Povos (People’s Summit) and a massive protest march through the city. They protested against the dominance and sponsorship of the fossil fuel, agricultural, and mining lobbies in the negotiating rooms, while civil society remained largely excluded.
The groups managed to interrupt the negotiations twice — once when they entered the premises and clashed with security forces and again when they prevented delegates from entering and forced COP president André Corrêa do Lago to listen to them. Most important, they exposed the contradictions of Brazilian politics, such as plans to privatize river ports and shipping and facilitate oil drilling, industrial waterways, and trains through the heart of the Amazon, all of which would expand the exploitation of commodities for export.
One of their demands was met when the Brazilian government decided to demarcate ten more indigenous territories. However, hundreds more remain pending and are under threat from invasion, violence, and killings.
As for the consensus-based political outcome document of COP30, which was adopted by 195 parties on Saturday following crisis-ridden delays, there were no breakthroughs. It reflects a backdrop characterized by militarization and geopolitical crises, an unjust and environmentally destructive economic order, and unprecedented social inequality.
Although the presidency supported the adoption of a road map for phasing out fossil fuels — a measure advocated by dozens of countries led by Colombia — the lack of preparation for this key issue and opposition from oil-producing countries made its inclusion in the final document unlikely. While the European Union blamed countries like Russia for blocking action, civil society observers criticized EU states themselves for obstructing the final negotiations, betraying their previous commitments and agreements, and standing in the way of more far-reaching decisions.
Still, one positive commitment is the development of such a road map, starting at the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels in Colombia in April 2026. A similar decision applies to the development of a road map for halting deforestation outside the formal negotiations. Another positive outcome is the Belém Action Mechanism, which emerged directly from social movements, trade unions, and environmental organizations. It calls for strengthening social participation, human rights, and climate justice in negotiations, particularly in the local implementation of climate plans.
The decisions adopted in the Belém package include mobilizing US$1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate protection measures and a commitment of rich countries to triple funding for climate adaptation by 2035. However, the industrialized countries, led by the EU, opposed commitments to specific amounts. Instead of investing public funds, they have tended to call for private, market-based, and offsetting mechanisms.
As countries such as Sierra Leone highlighted, the private sector is not investing in the needs of the people across the Global South, leaving especially the least developed countries behind. One example is the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), a market-oriented financing mechanism for forests launched by Brazil.
The EU and the UK initially gave an enthusiastic welcome to the TFFF. However, it is unclear who will control the TFFF and who its main beneficiaries will be — private investors or affected communities. Nor does it address the causes of deforestation, such as agribusiness and mining. That is why it is being contested by social movements.
In the end, few seem to want to pay for it anyway. While Brazil hoped to raise $25 billion in donations, actual commitments have reached only $5.6 billion, including $2 billion from the forest countries Brazil and Indonesia themselves.
In summary, Belém’s mission to revive ambitions and, above all, international cooperation to foster the Paris goal of preserving the 1.5 degree mark appeared hopeful but unrealistic, with the crisis once again being postponed to future negotiations. In the absence of the United States, neither China nor any other state filled the gap.
The need to phase out fossil fuels is greater than ever, and it remains to be seen what emerges from the process over the coming months. Residents of Belém know that if global warming continues unabated, their city will be uninhabitable in only a few decades.