Ten years after the historic Paris Agreement, funding and the phase-out of fossil fuels are notably absent from the final accord
Article by Clàudia Custodio Martínez, researcher in climate justice, Debt Observatory in Globalisation
The 30th edition of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (more commonly known as COP30) ended on the evening of Saturday, 22 November—a full day behind schedule, and with widespread dissatisfaction. There is a recurring feeling of emptiness whenever a summit draws to a close. Two weeks of meetings, protests, dashes through dark hallways, tropical temperatures and wildly misadjusted air conditioning end in disappointing agreements. What happened in Belém, the Brazilian host city? Has any progress been made in the fight against climate change?
The climate conferences that have been held since 1995 are the only space for countries to work together on addressing the crisis. Every state in the world (or at least those recognized by the UN) has a voice, and decisions are made by consensus. In addition to countries, participants include NGOs, companies, universities, representatives from local governments, members of the media, as observers. However, after thirty years of insufficient progress and in a context of escalating geopolitical tensions, the COPs have lost their legitimacy. The withdrawal of the United States, historically the world’s foremost emitter of greenhouse gases, is just another sign of how multilateralism is teetering on the edge of the abyss. The results of COP30 must be read in this context. The role of the presidency—held this year by Brazil—is to navigate differences between countries to reach agreements and move towards the goals of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
this conference was characterized by a great deal of opacity
Despite the gravity of the climate crisis, the agreements made at climate change summits are characterized by ambiguity and a lack of concreteness. Decision-making by consensus means that texts are watered down until they are acceptable to all those present. Seen from the outside, it is hard to understand why battles are fought over the verbs and concepts that appear in the final text. But in the setting of the United Nations, language matters. An analysis by Carbon Brief of this COP’s framework text (the Mutirão) clearly illustrates this: of 101 verbs, 69 are not active. Simply put, this means that they do not require that anything be done. For example, “Recognizes the centrality of the best available science […] provided by the IPCC” means just that: recognizing it, but not acting on it.
The firestorm on the penultimate day of the negotiations added plenty of drama to a COP that, due to a lack of information, was losing the media’s interest. Indeed, this conference was characterized by a great deal of opacity: negotiations behind closed doors were justified by the presidency as “shuttle diplomacy”—a strategy for negotiations between countries with evident geopolitical tensions. This method hindered the work of the observers: we were unable to access the texts slated for approval until the near-final drafts were ready. At the same time, this did nothing to find solutions to the most controversial issues.
Anyone who does not follow the negotiations at the COPs may find it surprising that the main cause of global warming—the burning of fossil fuels—does not appear in the final agreement. This is nothing new; in fact, not even the Paris Agreement mentions it. Nevertheless, COP28 in Dubai did manage to recognize a desire to “transition away from fossil fuels”. At this conference, Lula announced that we would soon have a roadmap to implement that transition. The struggle to put it together came to naught: although more than 80 countries voted in favour, the 193 negotiating parties failed to reach a consensus (due to opposition from countries like Russia or Saudi Arabia), and any references to fossil fuels disappeared. In the final plenary, everyone was shocked when Colombia stated that it would refuse to approve the mitigation work programme (the package that, in theory, would allow for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) unless it included the acknowledgement that fossil fuels must be abandoned to achieve it. After the commotion and a one-hour break for consultations, the presidency dismissed Colombia’s request, stating that it had been made too late and, as a result, the documents had already been approved. Meanwhile, Colombia had already announced that it would organize the first International Congress for the Phase-Out of Fossil Fuels… and that anyone who wanted to attend was welcome to come.
the necessary funding was not secured
Another central issue at this COP was the elaboration of a list of indicators to measure adaptation to climate change. Fifty-nine were eventually passed, although several countries found them insufficient and vague. Furthermore, the necessary funding was not secured. Adapting to climate change is a matter of life and death—and yes, it costs money. We know this well when we talk about adapting buildings so they can serve as climate refuges, or preventing disasters like the DANA floods that devastated the Valencian Country. Nevertheless, the countries of the Global North refused to commit to contributing what was requested. The final text calls on wealthy countries to triple existing adaptation funds by 2035, without specifying the baseline and using extremely vague language.
Brazil did not even achieve a commitment to halt deforestation—holding the COP in the heart of the Amazon rainforest was not enough. At the start of the conference, a new fund to protect tropical forests was presented (TFFF, or the Tropical Forest Forever Facility), and some countries signed on. Nevertheless, this fund is voluntary; it is backed by private capital, and was criticized by citizen groups for relying on market mechanisms to raise funding. By contrast, a roadmap to curb deforestation—which would have been more effective—was not included in COP30’s final results.
We have no choice but to continue organizing to move towards climate justice in a hostile context.
In spite of these bleak circumstances, a bit of good news from COP30 was the approval of a coordination mechanism for a just transition. This was achieved thanks to the hard work of citizen organizations, which widely celebrated the agreement to “develop” the mechanism. To unblock the phase-out of fossil fuels, we need a just transition that ensures that no one is left behind. This is the first time that the protection of rights (labour rights, human rights, the right to a healthy environment, the right to free, prior, and informed consent…) has been included to this degree in the results of a COP. Although it is worrying that references to critical minerals and the impacts of their extraction were eliminated from the final text due to pressures from countries like Russia and China, there are many other reasons to celebrate. The mechanism for a just transition is the first step towards placing social justice at the centre of climate action.
Also worth celebrating is that the Peoples’ Summit brought together more than 10,000 activists who believe that the climate crisis will not be solved through negotiations among elites. It had been four years since a civil-society summit was held alongside a COP; the last three host countries had not permitted it. This counter-summit was extremely powerful, with representatives from a wide range of citizen movements and indigenous communities from across Brazil—and, most of all, from across the Amazon. The defence of territorial rights played a key role in preparing the demands, and the participants even succeeded in forcing Brazil to recognize ten new indigenous land demarcations.
Ten years ago, in Paris, we took to the streets for climate justice, and a historic agreement was reached. This agreement had many shortcomings, and even failed to mention fossil fuels. Nevertheless, in the end, it was ratified by all countries and has served as a point of reference in the difficult path towards addressing the climate emergency. COP30 in Brazil fell short and made it clear that changes are needed—among other things, in how the COPs function. But abandoning multilateralism entirely is not an option in the face of a global crisis. We have no choice but to continue organizing to move towards climate justice in a hostile context.