COP30 in Belém, Brazil

The thirtieth United Nations Climate Change Conference, or conference of parties: COP30, convened in Belém, Brazil, against a backdrop of considerable geopolitical tension and uncertainty. The mood was shaped by the withdrawal of the world’s largest economy from the UN climate process and a year marked by escalating trade disputes. There was also a sense of diminished ambition, with submitted national climate plans falling short of what is needed to keep global warming within the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C threshold. The summit was held in the Amazon, for which somewhat ironically Brazil cut through tens of thousands of acres of protected rainforest to build a four-lane highway to access the summit.

 

As the summit began, hopes were raised by Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, who called for roadmaps to reverse deforestation and reduce fossil fuel dependency. This enthusiasm, however, was quickly tempered when the COP30 presidency had to manage expectations and clarify that such roadmaps were not part of the official COP agenda, but rather Brazil’s own national plans. 

 

From the onset of the conference, several contentious issues dominated discussions. The COP30 presidency managed to avoid a public row on the first day by announcing that although four of these contentious topics would not be included in the formal agenda, they would hold consultations on them during the summit. These contentious topics were climate finance from wealthy nations; trade measures; the ambition gap in emissions reductions; and the transparency of national data. The summit also saw, for the first time, the inclusion of minerals needed for the energy transition in negotiations, although this was ultimately excluded from the final agreement due to opposition from China. We do, however, believe this topic will be revisited at future summits. 

 

Despite strong support from many countries, the final agreement failed to mention fossil fuels or provide a roadmap for their phase-out, with key petro-states such as Saudia Arabia refusing any wording around the topic be included in the final text. Similarly, there was no commitment to halt deforestation, a glaring omission given the summit’s Amazonian setting. The indicators that were adopted in the final agreement to measure progress on adaptation were criticised for having been re-written during the summit, resulting in them being unclear and lacking expert input.

 

As for COP30 achievements, there was agreement to triple adaptation finance for developing countries by 2035, although a lack of a clear quantitative target and ambiguity over the baseline left many observers questioning the true impact of this commitment. The summit also established the Belém Action Mechanism, a plan designed to support a just transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, with a particular focus on protecting workers and communities. Indigenous rights received recognition in the final text, a positive step forward for groups who have long been marginalised in climate negotiations. Trade was also included in the deal for the first time, elevating its role in climate progress, with annual dialogues set to continue at Bonn.

 

As years go by and the annual summit seemingly becomes more fractious, and climate action less ambitious, the structure and outcomes of COP30 left us questioning their value-add. Much of what was achieved amounted to setting up future talks rather than taking decisive action, effectively kicking the can down the road. The absence of strong and forward-thinking leadership has made consensus difficult to achieve, and the process is often hampered by a handful of powerful states acting in their own interests. This ability of a small number of countries to veto decisions, coupled with a general lack of ambition, means these conferences are largely driven by real-world economic forces rather than by the desire to tackle the current climate crisis.

 

COP30 was billed as the COP of “truth and implementation”, but it ultimately failed to deliver on this promise. Without concrete roadmaps to protect nature or guide the transition away from fossil fuels, the final deal lacked the tangible steps required for meaningful climate action.

 

Important information

Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. The value of investments and the income from them may fall as well as rise and is not guaranteed. An investor may not get back the original amount invested. Opinions constitute our judgment as at the date shown and are subject to change without notice. This podcast is not intended as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell securities, nor does it constitute a personal recommendation. Where links to third party websites are provided, TrinityBridge accepts no responsibility for the content of such websites nor the services, products or items offered through such websites.