Climate Justice on the Front Lines: A Divided Climate Summit in Belém

Introduction: Two Sides of the Same Climate Coin

The 30th UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, presented a split scene. Inside the secure Blue Zone, negotiators engaged in formal talks, discussing texts and monetary pledges. This was a world of procedure, political games, and corporate influence.

Outside, a different story unfolded. Indigenous groups, young activists, and members of civil society protested their exclusion from the process, which they viewed as insufficient. They argued that the discussions inside the conference halls failed to address the urgent problems facing their world. This report examines the Belém situation, looking at access issues, the protests, the security response, and the climate events that underscored the talks.

1. Inside the Blue Zone: Power Plays and Politics

The Blue Zone, the official negotiation area at any COP, is designed to be the center for global climate policy. It is where countries are supposed to develop a shared plan. But at COP30, the results were influenced by internal power struggles, political disagreements, and external forces.

1.1. Disputes Over Words and Goals

The negotiations were marked by disputes over money, fossil fuels, and target levels.

Climate Funding: There was a huge difference between the needs of developing countries and the pledges made by wealthy ones. While experts say developing countries need $1.3 trillion each year to change their economies and adapt to climate change, the deal made in Baku and brought to Belém promised only $300 billion yearly by 2035. This offer was widely criticized. Representatives from India felt the process was staged, while Tina Stege, the climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, said, It isn’t nearly enough. A delegate from Nigeria called the deal a joke.

Fossil Fuel Phase-Out: A group of over 80 countries supported a plan to move away from fossil fuels. Despite this support, the idea was not initially included on the official agenda. After arguments with oil-producing countries, the agreement at COP30 did not mention fossil fuels directly. This was a setback for the UK, the European Union, and other countries that saw it as important for climate stability.

The 1.5°C Goal: The summit did not bridge the gap between political promises and scientific requirements. A UN report warned that current national commitments would lead to a dangerous 2.6°C to 3.1°C of warming. Data confirmed that CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels had increased by 1.1%, making it harder to keep the 1.5°C goal within reach.

1.2. Access Issues: Who Gets a Voice?

While policy was debated, there was concern over who had access to the discussions. Corporate interests enjoyed a privileged position, while frontline communities struggled to be heard.

Corporate Influence

Civil Society Exclusion

Over 300 lobbyists from big agriculture were present, a 14% increase from the previous year.

An estimated 14% of Indigenous Brazilians were expected to get into decision-making spaces, showing barriers.

JBS, the world's largest meat company, had eight representatives, including its CEO.

Protesters were angry about their limited access to the negotiations, with some pushing their way into the Blue Zone to be heard.

The global PR firm Edelman handled communications for both the COP30 presidency and its fossil fuel client, Shell.

Indigenous leader Tom Goldtooth criticized the situation: We have Indigenous people here who have to fight to get in, but we have these corporations that can just walk right in with no struggle.

1.3. International Relations

International relations created a difficult situation for the negotiations, with the absence of one major power and the changing role of another affecting the discussions.

The U.S. Absence: For the first time in 30 years, the United States had no official federal delegation, which matched the Trump administration's views on climate change. However, the U.S. still had an impact. Brandon Wu of ActionAid USA said the U.S. casts a long shadow over these negotiations, especially by hindering progress on climate funding and influencing other developed nations to resist making big financial commitments.

China's Changing Role: As the world's largest emitter and a leader in renewable technology, China was an important player. A senior adviser, Wang Yi, said that China don’t want to take the lead alone and is concerned about international trade barriers. Despite this, Chinese diplomats helped smooth over procedural problems, and a Brazilian negotiator praised their helpful role in adopting the summit's agenda early.

2. Protests and Resistance in Belém

The thousands of people who protested in Belém were not just a sideshow; their demonstrations were a response to the perceived failures of the formal process. Led by a coalition of Indigenous defenders and youth activists, these protests challenged the summit's legitimacy and rejected its priorities.

2.1. Indigenous Defenders Speak Out

Indigenous-led protests used different ways to make their message clear.

Forms of Protest: The Answer Caravan brought over 300 Indigenous, riverine, and peasant leaders on a trip of more than 3,000 kilometers to the summit. A protest took to the city's waterways, and thousands marched through Belém. Protesters blocked the main entrance to the Blue Zone, forcing delegates to use a side door.

Core Demands: Banners and chants called for: Our forests are not for sale, Keep the Forest Standing, Leave Oil and Gas Underground, and the legal recognition of their territories—Demarcation now! Vandria Borari, an Indigenous leader, criticized the industrial development affecting their lands, calling the privatization of rivers for soy production violence.

Critique of False Solutions: Protesters rejected market-based approaches like carbon offsets, which they see as a dangerous distraction. Jacob Johns, a Wisdom Keeper of the Akimel O’Otham and Hopi nations, described carbon markets as the same colonial logic dressed up as climate policy. Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network called for real solutions instead of corporate schemes.

2.2. A Generation's Message

Youth activists sent a message to world leaders, saying their future was being negotiated away. Their global youth statement, which included input from over 30,000 young people from over 100 countries, called for a full, fast, fair fossil phase-out. Keanu Arpels-Josiah, an organizer with Fridays For Future, spoke of the generation's anger: Our future is being burnt down with the flames of fossil fuel extractivism, genocide, and colonialism disguised under false solutions.

3. Security, Exclusion, and Repression

At COP30, the response to peaceful protest became an important story. The security measures showed a conflict between the UNFCCC's goal of inclusion and its actions when faced with protest from the communities it claims to serve.

3.1. Silencing of Dissent

The response to Indigenous-led demonstrations was quick and severe. Authorities increased security, with police creating a barrier around the conference venue. This led to confrontations, with demonstrators pulling doors and struggling with guards to enter the Blue Zone.

This approach was criticized. An open letter from 201 organizations, including Amnesty International, accused UN climate chief Simon Stiell of encouraging a crackdown, creating a feeling of unsafety for Indigenous peoples, environmental and other human rights defenders.

3.2. Different Treatment

The security response created a clear contrast. While Indigenous groups struggled to enter, lobbyists for the fossil fuel and agriculture industries moved freely. This showed that dissent was seen as a threat, while corporate influence was normal.

3.3. The Cost of Resistance

The situation in Belém was made worse by violence. During the conference, Vicente Fernandes Vilhalva, a 36-year-old Guarani Kaiowá Indigenous leader, was killed in southern Brazil during a land dispute. This highlighted that Latin America is the most dangerous region for environmental defenders, linking the negotiations to the struggles happening on the ground.

4. A World in Crisis

The negotiations and protests at COP30 took place as the planet faced climate change. For communities already affected by extreme weather, the summit's discussions were vital, showing that the climate crisis is a present reality.

4.1. A Planet Under Pressure

The data from 2024 and 2025 showed a climate system pushed to its limits.

Record Heat: 2024 was confirmed as the hottest year in history, with global average temperatures exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Extreme Weather: Climate events caused damage worldwide. Flooding in Valencia, Spain, caused over 158 deaths. Hurricane Helene hit the southeastern United States, causing destruction. In the Amazon, drought dried up rivers.

Ecological Damage: Scientists warned that the Amazon rainforest is at risk, potentially changing from a carbon sink to a carbon source. The world's oceans experienced a global coral bleaching event, affecting an estimated 77% of reef areas.

4.2. The Human Cost

The effects of environmental damage are uneven, affecting vulnerable populations the most.

Health Impacts: The World Health Organization calls climate change the number one health threat to humanity. An estimated 4.2 to 7 million people die prematurely from air pollution each year.

Displacement: Rising sea levels could flood coastal areas currently inhabited by 340 to 480 million people by the end of the century.

Environmental Violence: In Iraq, a father is suing BP, claiming that gas flaring caused the leukemia that killed his son.

5. Conclusion: A Growing Divide

The COP30 summit in Belém will be remembered for the Belém situation: a conference divided between the controlled world of the Blue Zone and the protests and planetary crisis outside. Inside, there was talk of compromise. Outside, the focus was on survival, justice, and failure.

The official process failed to secure commitments on phasing out fossil fuels or providing climate funding. The summit's results were influenced by corporate interests and political issues, while the voices of those most affected by climate change were ignored and repressed. This raises questions about the future of the UN climate process: Can a system influenced by the industries driving the crisis and which suppresses the voices of those affected ever bring about the changes needed to avoid a global collapse?