The Controversial Themes of the 30th COP

Climate justice discussions entangle multiple perspectives, which while often controversial must be addressed. Policy makers might have different priorities, while only pretending to listen to the voices of relevant people for climate negotiations. Are we supporting a more ecological and inclusive future, or simply using the sustainability flag to gain support and achieve hidden economic goals?

COP, the Conference of the Parties 30, the 30^th United Nations conference on Climate Change took place in Belém, Brazil November 10^th and 21^st , 2025. COP 30’s president, the climate, energy and environment secretary from the external relations Ministry, André Corrêa do Lago, was responsible for leading the negotiations. Ana Toni, executive-director of the COP 30, was second in command. The UN chose Brazil as this years’ host country after Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president, had offered to fulfil this role. This being the first COP happening with the Amazon in the centre clearly made an impact on the direction of the negotiations. Everyone taking part could feel the extremely high temperatures and see the real-life consequences from climate change threats.

However, the warm temperatures didn’t make enough of a difference to Brazilians politicians, specifically from the Pará’s government, the estate where Belém is located. In 2020 an infrastructure project emerged, including the construction of the road Avenida da Liberdade. This conference was the final motivation to finish the work, which destroyed over 100 hectares of native forest for the access to Belém. In addition to that, Pará’s government built a ‘Bioeconomy and Innovation Park of the Amazon’. This project’s goal was to promote economic activities based on the forest’s biodiversity, transforming the Amazon into a lucrative market while preserving the environment. They aim to achieve this through a sustainable biomass use, however it will also threaten Amazon’s preservation due to native vegetation deforestation required to produce it.

Belém received over 800 million euros to improve the city’s infrastructure and prepare for an event of this magnitude. However, multiple problems arose due to poor management from the national government. One concern was the city’s accommodation capacity, which initially was not higher than 18 thousand. They managed to increase it to 53 thousand places, overachieving the expected demand, which was 50 thousand. As a result, hotels’ prices rose increasingly, leading to 25 countries pressuring the UN for the event to happen somewhere else, which wasn’t feasible due to lack of time. The solution was to hire two cruise ships and create an online platform to reserve accommodations from real estate agencies and the Airbnb website. The lack of organization showed the event was already plagued with issues before it even started.

On November 11^th, the first day of the conference, another incident occurred, now relating to safety. Climate activists, including Indigenous peoples, attempted to invade the Blue Zone, the area where the main negotiations happened, by violating the safety barriers in COP’s main entrance. According to the activist, Júlio Pontes, they wanted to be heard, asking for more inclusion, since COP limits the participation of social movements which defend territories and native forests. After a while, the police contained the protestors and no impact was achieved. Although COP’s administration didn’t want to limit civil rights for protesting, the General Secretary of the Climate Convention (UNFCCC), Simon Stiell, required the improvement of conditions concerning safety flaws referring to the attempted invasions and protests. For an improved wellbeing, he also searched for solutions regarding high temperatures, floodings, and other precarious conditions at the conference.

On another occasion, on November 14^th, representatives of the Munduruku Indigenous people blocked access to the Blue Zone. The movement Ipereg Ayu motivated them, as they aim to fight for their rights, including territorial. They were sent to meet with Corrêa do Lago, from the Ministry of Indigenous People. Their objectives were to demand an urgent meeting with President Lula to report against the advancement of infrastructure federal projects that directly impacted the territory belonging to Munduruku and other people living near the river Tapajós were affected. These development strategies are made without previous, free and informed consultation, required according to Convention 169 of the International Work Organisation (OIT). Munduruku Indigenous people are also against carbon credits projects and the JREDD+ mechanism and the Tropical Forests Forever Facility. These are complementary financial streams to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, or forest restoration, and reward the preserved forest areas. The movement believe they are a “forest sale”, as they are classified as “fake solutions” because they remove indigenous autonomy and opens space for industries in their territories, while not solving the root causes of climate issues, such as industry deforestation, illegal mining, building of waterways and expansion of soy monoculture. Ana Toni recognized their demands to be legitimate and that the government is invested in listening to them.

In total, there are nearly 2.000 representatives from 391 Indigenous people living in Brazil. However, during the protest of the Munduruku the Indigenous activist Alessandra Korap Munduruku expressed their disappointment by stating to stop using their image to pretend their projects prioritize sustainability. With 360 leaders engaged in the official negotiations, their expectations for climate change mitigation actions included forest protection, Indigenous territories’ demarcation and management, and climate financing channels directly to Indigenous people. Overall, they aim to strengthen their leadership in reducing carbon emissions through acquiring relevant roles in climate policy where their voices are heard and their wishes granted. 

How about the results? 

Therefore, despite the evident effort and progress with measures to tackle environmental issues, the policies agreed and investments are still insufficient to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. For instance, there were mismatches regarding the size of countries’ ambitions in subjects related to fossil fuels, health, and territories. Meaning some were aiming very high, for instance 80 pushed for fossil fuel use abolishment and 30 threatened to not embrace a decision without a plan for ending its use, such as Colombia who had a structured plan to quit fossil fuel use. However, the majority were not matching their ambitions. For instance, Saudi Arabia rejected the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on climate obligations, attempted to exclude protection for women's environment activists and reduced human rights mention to a Footnote. In addition, together with the UAE, they prevented the negotiation of a strategy away from fossil fuel as an energy source and didn’t allow its mention in the official decision. As for the European Union, they refused to match the expected financial goals to triple the subsidy for developing countries' climate adaptation. 

On November 15^th, the unhappiness with the event’s development was also demonstrated by a 1.5 km march in Belém in of over 70 thousand people from 60 different countries, where doctors, nurses, students, indigenous leaders and representatives of social movements protested for public health policies, climate justice, indigenous territory demarcation, and indigenous people’s rights.

Nine years ago, at COP 21 in Paris, 195 countries compromised to reach a goal of limiting global warming to 1,5°C. This year, all countries had to present new goals of greenhouse gases emissions reduction. The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) show real and increased progress on climate action through national goals supported by a global cooperation determined in 2025 offered a recent representation of the climate compromises and the progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement. According to Corrêa do Lago, this NDCs' report aimed to meet the climate urgency through accelerated implementation, solidarity and ambitious international cooperation. The new NDCs showed progress in various areas in countries around the world, highlighting economy-wide targets, domestic mitigation measures, and an enhanced cooperation under article 6 of the NDCs’ report, which entails to tackle climate change and to unlock current climate financial support for developing countries.

Although the goals set with the NDCs provide a limited picture and it only represents one-third of global emissions, it is consistent with a linear trajectory to long-term net zero targets. Furthermore, the projected objective shows a 10% drop in emissions by 2035. COP30 is vital for the achievement of these goals.

Brazil strategically addressed the most controversial themes of climate diplomacy first outside the official negotiations; in case it should be required to take them to a political level in the governments of the various nations. The themes included in the “action agenda” motivated volunteer compromises by businesses, cities and organisations to boost the conference results. For instance, the decrease of the Amazon’s deforestation and the reduction of greenhouse gases emission, meanwhile Ibama (The Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) authorized the search for petroleum at the mouth of the Amazon river. In this way, the negotiations were not disrupted at the beginning due to disagreements, which was a big win compared to past occasions.

As one hundred and ninety-five Parties reached the Belém Package on the afternoon of November 22nd, we could see how humanity can transform urgency into unity, and unity into action in tackling climate change. The COP30 president, Corrêa do Lago, expressed his wishes for this conference agreements to be reflected and implemented in “every government meeting, every boardroom and trade union, every classroom, laboratory, forest community, large city, and coastal town.”

Regarding the main approved decisions in the Belém Package, first it was established that developed nations should increase finance directed to climate for developing countries. For that, they concluded the Baku Adaptation Roadmap (BAR), which organises the work for 2026-2028. The goal of the BAR is to scale up climate finance for developing states by “at least $1.3tn” a year by 2035 for climate adaptation actions at global and national levels and enable the goals of the COP to be implemented and achieved.

Second, they adopted a document within the Belem package, the Mutirão decision. It secured implementation mechanisms related to NDCs and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and the Belém Mission to 1.5 global warming goals. In summary, the Global Mutirão decision recognizes biodiversity loss as crucial to solve the climate change issue. 

In conclusion, in between protests, marches, management flaws, regresses, and progresses regarding climate and indigenous people justices, the result was overall positive. However, it still lacks a substantial amount of ambition from several parties. These are crucial for the establishment of objectives that will most definitely achieve real progress in climate change related issues.