In Belém, Brazil, in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, COP30 concluded its procedings last Saturday nov.22; this major global event was supposed to be a great "operation truth": without moving away from fossil fuels, without stopping deforestation, and without truly supporting the most vulnerable countries and fragile social sectors, there is no secure future for anyone.

Brazil had chosen a beautiful word as the motto for its COP: mutirão, meaning collective effort towards a common goal. It is a pity that this was not the prevailing spirit in the negotiations. One figure says it all: 1,602 fossil fuel lobbyists were present, one for every 25 delegates, including 17 from Italy. Representatives of indigenous peoples? There were more than 3,000, but only 360 were allowed into the area where the real decisions are made.

Three blocs faced off for two weeks.

On one side were the petro-states, Saudi Arabia and Russia, supported by India, which once again took advantage of the fact that COPs require the consensus of all to make decisions. Since their goal is to continue producing and selling gas and oil for as long as possible, they managed to prevent the final text from mentioning a global roadmap for ending dependence on fossil fuels, proposed by President Lula just before the beginning of COP without previous preparation and as an off agenda deeply political point; they even started to cast doubt on the work of IPCC scientists.

The European Union was not very decisive on the financial side at least at the beginning, but joined from the start the countries, including some from Latin America like Colombia, who defended the establishment for a clear path out of fossil fuel dependence as a majorbut were much less decisive on the financial front. Nevertheless, they have joined numerous initiatives also some that did not make it into the final document: the Belém Roadmap to stay below 1.5°C of warming: the Global Accelerator for the Implementation of National Plans: the Belem action Mechanism (BAM) for a just transition, aiming at increasing international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity-building, and knowledge exchange, and enabling fair and inclusive just transition pathways; resulted directly from a proposal from the civil society and should be operational by COP31; and of course the  International Conference towards a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty scheduled to take place in Colombia in 2026. Finally, there are the most vulnerable countries and indigenous peoples who are interested in a credible program for rapid emissions reduction and in obtaining quick financing to help them adapt, as far as possible, to the already tragic effects of climate change. Now, not decades from now. What have they achieved? A call to triple adaptation funding by 2035, at least $300 billion per year from rich countries by 2035 as part of a target of $1.3 trillion per year in public and private funds already agreed in principle in Baku last year. And a ‘just transition mechanism’ that remains to be built. In short, slow progress for the next ten years: but where will we be in 10 years?

For its part, China is a green tech giant, aspiring to lead the ‘global south’, but it has not exposed itself either on the fossil fuel roadmap or on climate finance: as always, China leadership is convinced that after all its green business does not need an international legal framework.

A negative mention goes to Italy: it arrived in Belém promoting ‘clean’ gas and nuclear power and, above all, biofuels, and for the first time actively obstructed, fortunately without success, the EU's common position on the historic commitment to phase out fossil fuels; and what is worse, it received unexpected assistance from President Ursula Von der Leyen, who said at the G20 in Johannesburg that she was against emissions and not against fossil fuels.....which are responsible for 75% of climate-changing emissions: it's like saying you're against smoking and not against cigarettes! It is not clear if this positioning will have an impact on the already shaky Green Deal, but it is without doubt at best an embarassing misstep. 

On deforestation, despite being in the Amazon, the result was disappointing: no global roadmap, no new serious targets, not even monitoring obligations, even though more than 90 countries, including EU members, supported an implementation plan to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. Unfortunately, however, the EU is also backing down on its innovative law on deforestation, which will undoubtedly be delayed and later amended thanks to the agreement between the Popular Party and the far right in these days at the European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg.

The real mutirão, however, was seen outside the negotiating rooms. Thousands of young people, indigenous communities, and social movements brought an energy that had not been seen for some time, after three COPs in non-democratic countries (Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan). However, this force still had too little influence on the final decisions, partly due to the way the COPs work; given that, in essence, those who caused the crisis were in the control room and those who suffer from it were mostly outside! It will be interesting to see how the next COP will develop: it will take place in Ankare, Turkey, a country where a relevant part of the elected opposition is in prison, and will be chaired by Australia. What will be the place for civil society there? 

The Brasilian Presidency of COP30 promised a lot and delivered little, leaving a strong sense of missed opportunity. In such a hostile and polarized international context, it was perhaps inevitable that the results would be limited; nevertheless, the very fact that the negotiations will continue remains an essential element. But it is not enough. A growing number of commentators argue that the future of global climate action will have to be less "global". And will have to count on the mobilisation of groups of states and regions, combined with a stronger voice of civil society on climate action. This is a particularly relevant point. If it can re-establish itself in the public debate notably around the Just transition challenge, and shape consensus (read: votes), it will be possible to push for more courageous choices in the not too distant future, above all if some ambitious regions and states will act as they promised to do. Because science shows us reality, businesses and research offer concrete solutions, but only politics can transform them into effective decisions. And the problem is that today, much of politics seems neither willing nor interested in doing so.