COP30: Final Phase with Evident Progress and Potential Gaps
- Amazon Connection Carbon
- 3 days ago
- 9 min read
During COP 30, held in Belém, Brazil emerged as a global coordinator in the governance of the international carbon market. At the event, the country assumed a central role on the global decarbonisation agenda by announcing the establishment of the Open Coalition of Regulated Carbon Markets. The initiative seeks to integrate nations that already operate structured emissions-trading systems, thereby strengthening transparency, standardisation, and the credibility of international carbon-credit transactions. The announcement signalled a step-change in Brazil’s engagement: the country ceases to be merely a relevant actor in climate and biodiversity matters. In this post, you will gain an understanding of how the market functions, from its origins to what the new coalition signifies for the future of the green economy.
During the second week of COP 30, held in Belém, Pará, from 10 to 21 November, the global climate conference entered its decisive phase, characterised by a convergence of high expectations and tangible obstacles. On multiple fronts, programmes, funds and coalitions were announced that represent significant progress — particularly in domains such as forest conservation, nature protection and socio-environmental justice. At the same time, signs of fragility emerged in the negotiations on energy transition and the elimination of fossil fuels, considered by many to be the central axis for maintaining the 1.5 °C global warming target.
Thus the atmosphere revealed a profound ambivalence: on the one hand, COP 30 displayed a readiness to construct novel instruments; on the other hand, it became evident that the “implementation phase” remains far from consolidated. On the stage of the Amazon — a symbolic site conceived to highlight the role of the forest in the global climate balance — the contradictions became manifest: environmental protection and fossil-fuel dependence, social inclusion and institutional challenges, rhetoric and infrastructure.
Fire in the Blue Zone
On Thursday of the second week, an incident occurred that drew attention to practical vulnerabilities of the conference: a fire broke out in a pavilion within the so-called Blue Zone — the area reserved for delegations, journalists and negotiators — prompting an emergency evacuation of those present. Although the blaze was brought under control in approximately six minutes, and thirteen individuals were treated for smoke inhalation, the incident exposed a range of operational frailties in the midst of the central global climate discussions.
The event directly impacted the schedule: key meetings were relocated or temporarily suspended, causing delays at a time when urgency and pace were essential. The forced change of rooms, the evacuation of participants and the revision of safety protocols became part of the scenario, while negotiators resumed engagements with diminished fluidity. It is pertinent to observe that, in a conference where technical and symbolic credibility matters, logistical failures of this nature conflict with the “execution” purpose the gathering seeks.
The episode rekindled questions regarding preparedness, accountability and contingency. The Federal Police’s investigation into the possible origin of the fire—citing indications of a short circuit or electrical failure in equipment within the restricted area—focuses not only on the incident itself but also on what it reveals about the level of requirement for events of this magnitude. The fire was factual content, an alarm for symbolism and a test of the institutional confidence in COP30.
The scientific manifesto and the appeal for a concrete roadmap
While the infrastructure incident occurred at the conference, the voice of the scientific community gained strength in the corridors and press rooms. Researchers presented delegations with a manifesto calling on COP30 to establish a “clear roadmap” for the progressive elimination of fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas. In the document, they warn of the severe impacts of the climate crisis, citing prolonged droughts in the Amazon, the collapse of coral reefs, heightened risks to vulnerable communities, and the accelerated depletion of the carbon budget to meet the 1.5 °C target.
Concurrently, more than 80 countries (some reports cite 83) publicly endorsed a call for this roadmap at COP30. The size of this endorsement is significant: it marks a meaningful political foundation for placing fossil fuels at the centre of the climate agenda. Yet the nature of the proposal still raised crucial divergences: deadlines, responsibilities, funding, monitoring mechanisms, and equitable implementation.
The COP30 Presidency, through statements and positions, acknowledged the importance of a “transition roadmap” for fossil fuels, but the texts negotiated up to the final phase featured language regarded by many analysts as “vague” or without binding targets. This discrepancy between the appeal and the formal text underscores one of the central tensions of the second week: growing mobilization, but still no fully drawn-up global policy framework.
Implementation in the Foreground: Forests, Justice and Green Finance
Against the current of challenges surrounding the fossil-fuel roadmap, COP30 advanced with greater clarity in other domains, notably those related to nature, local communities and climate justice.
Among the highlights of the second week:
The Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) was launched, projecting over US $5.5 billion for tropical forest conservation, with endorsement from 53 countries. The model is results-based: nations able to demonstrate reductions in deforestation or improved conservation of their tropical forests may access the funds.
The approach of “environmental governance” gained prominence. The participation of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities in negotiations was intensified, and mechanisms were announced to increase their role in decision-making processes for climate finance. This emphasis also sought to incorporate climate justice as an integral part of global policy, rather than a mere adjunct.
In the agricultural sector, the so-called RAIZ Initiative was introduced, aimed at the restoration of degraded agricultural lands, the promotion of sustainable food systems and the leadership of women in vulnerable communities. Panels during the second week devoted attention to the role of women in developing climate-resilience practices and land restoration.
A commitment of US $1.8 billion was announced for the regularization of traditional lands, thereby strengthening the recognition of Indigenous and local territories as strategic elements of the global climate solution.
These advances may be interpreted as indicators that COP30 is undertaking with increased diligence the challenge of moving beyond rhetoric and delineating more structured—or at least more concrete—instruments for practical action. The scale of the announced sums and the diversity of fronts (forests, land rights, regenerative agriculture) reinforce this reading. Nevertheless, the challenge of implementation remains: to operationalize the mechanisms, distribute the resources, monitor the results and ensure equity.
The Roadmap Under Contest: The Knot of the Energy Transition
While the agenda of nature and justice proceeded with a degree of ease, the issue of the energy transition and fossil fuels assumed centre stage in the second week of COP30. The “roadmap” for the gradual elimination of fossil fuels became the epicentre of diplomatic contention during the conference.
Elements under deliberation
Among the components deemed essential by countries and organisations for this roadmap are:
the definition of clear deadlines for the reduction and elimination of coal, oil and gas usage;
the progressive withdrawal of subsidies to fossil fuels;
robust financial support for developing countries to ensure a just transition;
mechanisms for monitoring, verification and accountability;
conditions for workers and regions economically dependent on fossil fuels.
Convergences and divergences
On the convergence side, there was a marked increase in the number of countries acknowledging the necessity of a roadmap, and the business sector also appraised declarations urging an energy-planning roadmap. The European bloc, after internal negotiations (including reservations by Italy and Poland), presented a proposal for a “Mutirão” roadmap within COP30.
Conversely, divergences arose: the draft decision being negotiated under the presidency of COP30 omitted binding clauses for the elimination of fossil fuels; the text, according to criticism, retained indefinite language, lacked a defined timetable, and did not enunciate legally binding obligations. Countries highly dependent on fossil fuels or those that export energy cited the economic risks of transition, thereby diluting the ambition of the final document.
Why this matters
The reason this dispute matters lies at the heart of the climate crisis: without a concrete plan to reduce the use of fossil fuels, commitments regarding forest conservation, nature protection and adaptation revert to being contingent on “safety contours” in a global energy transition. The roadmap document is therefore not merely a diplomatic formality — it is the instrument capable of providing predictability to investment, guiding public policies, and connecting ambition with implementation.
In the second week the scene was thus: strong mobilisation, a text under negotiation, yet without a definitively robust outcome. In a context of accelerating climate urgency — with reports signalling record emissions and ever-tighter carbon budgets — the absence of a clear roadmap is perceived as a concrete risk to COP30’s credibility.
Tension Between Forest and Fossil: A Symbiosis of Agendas and Ruptures
During the second week of COP 30, a structural tension came to light: the increasing emphasis on nature and local communities does not supersede—nor can it replace—the challenge of the energy transition. Forest conservation, land-regularisation and regenerative agriculture are pivotal components of the climate response, yet they coexist with the global dependence on coal, oil and gas.
At COP 30 this tension manifested in two distinct modes:
Symbolic simultaneity — while some nations announced instruments for nature conservation, others negotiated with reservations or resistance to a rigorous timetable for fossil-fuel elimination.
Infrastructure and credibility — the fire incident in the Blue Zone, though operational in nature, circulated as a metaphor for the structural fragility of an event that aspired to be “decisive.” Put differently: if even the diplomatic infrastructure was not free from faults, what confidence can be placed in the announced implementation mechanisms?
This scenario requires that COP 30 be read with nuance and through the prism of interdependence: protecting forests, financing adaptation, empowering indigenous communities are fundamental dimensions that walk together—not in isolation—with global decarbonisation. Today’s climate-policy design demands a systemic approach: nature + energy + finance + justice.
Climate Finance: A Condition of Viability
One of the foundational themes that traversed the entire second week was climate finance – an indispensable condition for converting targets and promises into action.
Some central points emerged:
Recent estimates indicate that CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and cement might reach a new record in 2025. This amplifies the pressure on nations and institutions to accelerate measures.
Delegations from developing countries emphasised that climate finance must be predictable, long-term, and enable inclusive economic transitions—not merely fleeting promises.
In terms of concrete outcomes, the launch of the TFFF and the US$ 1.8 billion commitment for traditional lands are visible responses, yet they do not replace the challenge of mobilising trillions of dollars in infrastructure and clean energy over the coming decades.
The “Baku-to-Belém Roadmap” document intends to mobilise about US$ 1.3 trillion per annum by 2035 for the climate transition, but it still lacks operational consolidation.
Ultimately, climate finance appears as the critical link: without it, mechanisms risk remaining announcements; with it, a pathway to execution opens—but simultaneously brings governance, equity and efficiency challenges.
As the second week drew to a close, analysts began mapping what COP 30 might leave for the global agenda—and what it risks failing to deliver.
Realistic legacies in sight:
The TFFF and its associated commitments reinforce the idea that forests and nature are strategic climate goods, worthy of specific treaties and financing.
The increased role of indigenous peoples, local communities and women in technical panels may democratise the climate agenda by incorporating previously marginalised perspectives.
The substantial country support for a fossil-fuel roadmap indicates that the theme now occupies a prominent place in climate diplomacy—even if detailed provisions remain pending.
Alerts for the post-Belém era:
If the roadmap does not emerge with timetable, resources, verification and embedded justice, it risks becoming another “aspirational declaration” rather than an actionable plan.
The energy transition demands that investments, infrastructure, capacity-building and social support move in tandem. If not addressed integrally, effects may be unequal and provoke political resistance.
The credibility of COP 30 may depend equally on the execution of announced commitments. If many remain on paper, the diplomatic momentum risks dissipating.
From Promise to Action—The Challenge Is Laid
In the second week of COP 30, it became evident that the conference was not limited to debate – announcements were made, instruments proposed and political mobilisation concretised. COP 30 ceased to be a catalogue of intentions and advanced into the domain of operationalisation across multiple fronts—particularly nature, climate justice and finance.
On the other hand, it became clear that the “action phase” still lacks one of its most structural components: a globally-articulated plan for the energy transition, particularly focused on fossil fuels. If the roadmap’s score remains un-tuned, the future of climate negotiations risks fading into unfulfilled pledges.
For the international community, for Brazil as host and for the private and social actors involved or observing, the imperative is simple (yet demanding): translate Belém’s announcements into domestic policies, real investments, resilient infrastructure and transparent processes. In doing so, COP 30 may become not only a diplomatic milestone, but the commencement of an executive trajectory. Otherwise, it may be remembered simply as another occasion where the “map” was discussed—but not used.
Source:
“83 Countries Join Call to End Fossil Fuels at COP30” – Earth.Org. (Earth.Org)
“Business Coalition at COP30 Urges Transition Away From Fossil Fuels” – Earth.Org. (Earth.Org)
“More than 80 countries at COP30 join call for roadmap to fossil fuel phase-out” – The Guardian. (The Guardian)
“Cop: 80 nations back roadmap on shift from fossil fuels” – Argus Media. (Argus Media)
“Double down on push to abandon fossil fuels, 82 countries urge at climate summit” – Politico. (Politico)
“COP30 Statement for a Fossil Fuel Roadmap” – We Mean Business Coalition. (We Mean Business Coalition)
“Direct Access for Indigenous Peoples Is Key to the Effectiveness of the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF)” – Rainforest Foundation US. (Rainforest Foundation US)
“Brazil announces a new platform to support countries access the Tropical Forests Forever Facility” – UNDP/ClimatePromise. (UNDP Climate Promise)
“TFFF reaches US$ 5.5 billion in funding” – MercoPress. (MercoPress)
“EU rift on fossil-fuel roadmap threatens strong COP30 outcome” – ClimateHomeNews. (Climate Home News)
Comments