By Professor Dr. Ahmad Kamruzzaman Majumder
The first week of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, has exposed the widening fault lines in global climate governance. From the opening day, long-standing contestations over climate justice, reparation funding, and historical responsibility re-emerged with greater intensity. The recent International Court of Justice ruling—calling for a legally binding 1.5°C target, restrictions on fossil-fuel lobbying, and stronger transparency—has added fresh urgency, sharpening divisions between developed nations and climate-vulnerable small island and least developed countries.
In the past decade, nearly 250 million people have been displaced by climate-induced disasters, further aggravated by conflict and poverty. UNHCR’s call for a rapid and equitable financing system reflects a growing humanitarian emergency. Meanwhile, the absence of the United States’ Trump administration from global leadership, China’s strategic activism, India’s hardline positioning, and political pressures within the European Union have complicated negotiations from the outset. Small island states and LDCs came to Belém with clear demands: a fossil-fuel phase-out, stronger NDCs, debt-free climate financing, and implementation of the “Baku-to-Belém Roadmap”.
Climate Finance: The Central Stumbling Block
The second day was dominated by disagreements over climate finance. The unmet US$100 billion pledge continues to undermine trust. Negotiators debated the post-2025 long-term finance goal, while developing nations emphasized the need for grant-based—rather than loan-dependent—support. Questions surrounding the operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund remain unresolved: Who will contribute? How much? And who will qualify?
For small island states facing immediate threats from cyclones, sea-level rise and coastal erosion, the urgency of an emergency support window could not be clearer.
The Global Stocktake discussion highlighted implementation gaps, emission-reduction shortfalls and the need for transparent, updated NDCs. While the EU reaffirmed its promise to end coal-based power by 2030, critics argued that its silence on oil and gas consumption undermines credibility. India and Saudi Arabia opposed inclusion of the term “fossil-fuel phase-out,” once again revealing entrenched geopolitical frictions. Bangladesh called for dedicated financing for coastal protection, agricultural resilience, forecasting systems and disaster management.
Renewables Rise, Yet Fossil Fuels Hold Ground
By day three, the discourse shifted to implementation. China showcased significant progress in scaling renewable energy and pledged to stabilize CO₂ emissions. Yet failure to meet its 2020-2025 carbon-intensity targets signals continued challenges ahead.
Climate scientists, including Johan Rockström, warned that removing 10 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually is now necessary to keep warming below 1.7°C—an alarming benchmark highlighting the inadequacy of current commitments.
Dramatic protests erupted as indigenous activists breached security lines, chanting “Our forests are not for sale.” Leaders like Kayapo chief Raoni called for legally empowered indigenous stewardship of the Amazon. Debates over carbon markets, biodiversity protection and Article 6 implementation gained momentum. Bangladesh used its pavilion to highlight national vulnerabilities and its ongoing mitigation and adaptation initiatives.
Data Integrity, Cooperation and a Worsening Emissions Gap
On day four, 12 countries signed a declaration against climate-data manipulation, aiming to protect scientific integrity and environmental journalism. Yet the expedited three-minute release of the Stocktake review revealed how deeply divided parties remain.
Despite rapid renewable-energy growth, the International Energy Agency warned that rising coal, oil and gas emissions could push the world toward a catastrophic 2.6°C scenario. Bangladesh hosted a special session on Article 6, underscoring the importance of transparent carbon markets and feasible emission-reduction pathways.
Outside the negotiations, 5,000 indigenous activists and civil-society groups took to the Amazon River in a flotilla of more than 100 boats, demanding climate justice.
Policy Contradictions and the Struggle for Ambition
The fifth day was marked by contradictions. While EU negotiators urged global ambition, the European Parliament simultaneously approved relaxing key emission-reduction and forest-conservation targets. International organizations, meanwhile, renewed calls for a global fossil-fuel phase-out and a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Debates on “gender” within climate texts exposed cultural and political divides. Belém also launched the “Health Action Plan” to integrate digital health, risk monitoring and climate-adaptation strategies. A Bangladesh pavilion event highlighted locally led, nature-based solutions through the Sundarbans and Hakaluki Haor, emphasizing resilience and biodiversity conservation.
Indigenous Rights and the Fossil-Fuel Transition
On day six, climate finance again took center stage. The US$100 billion promise remains unfulfilled; available funds are disproportionately directed to richer, middle-income countries, bypassing the poorest and most vulnerable.
Brazil’s indigenous Munduruku people blocked the main entrance to the COP venue, demanding direct talks with President Lula and the COP presidency—an unmistakable reminder that climate justice must be people-centered.
For the first time, COP30 entered structured discussions on a global framework for fossil-fuel reduction. Civil society demanded protection of the Amazon, implementation of the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM), and a just, inclusive transition. At the same time, worsening dengue and yellow fever outbreaks underscored the accelerating health impacts of climate change.
Methane, Tipping Points and Youth Leadership
Day seven spotlighted methane-emission cuts, planetary tipping points and loss-and-damage financing. The United Nations warned of irreversible risks to the Amazon rainforest and Greenland ice sheet as the 1.5°C threshold is temporarily breached.
Thousands marched in Belém demanding an end to fossil fuels, mining in the Amazon and violations of indigenous land rights. In a high-level event led by Bangladeshi youth, participants stressed easier access to the Loss and Damage Fund, transparency and institutionalized youth representation.
Geopolitical obstacles remained evident, with Saudi Arabia resisting efforts to strengthen fossil-fuel transition language.
The Week’s Verdict: Ambition Lags Behind Reality
The first week of COP30 revealed a troubling decline in ambition among major emitters. The suspension of a major US shipping climate deal and the EU’s weakened 2040 targets raise doubts about multilateral credibility. Emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) need US$2.3–2.5 trillion annually for mitigation and adaptation—rising to US$3.2 trillion by 2035—yet only US$196 billion was mobilized in 2023.
Brazil’s bold “Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF)”—a US$125-billion investment proposal for forest protection—faced intense scrutiny, particularly over governance and equitable benefit-sharing.
Negotiators have already admitted that COP30 is unlikely to produce a full-fledged roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels. Such a roadmap would require clear timelines, milestones and binding commitments that remain politically unattainable.
However, there is cautious optimism that COP30 may at least begin a process—an open, multi-year dialogue bridging fossil-fuel producers and consumers—under future COP presidencies.
Conclusion
The first week of COP30 has reaffirmed both the urgency of the climate crisis and the fragility of collective action. As vulnerable countries like Bangladesh continue to face escalating threats, the world stands at a crossroads:
Will political will rise to match scientific necessity, or will ambition continue to erode under geopolitical pressures?
The second week in Belém must deliver not only clarity but credibility—something the world’s most vulnerable communities cannot afford to wait any longer for.
[The writer is a Dean, Faculty of Science and Professor, Department of Environmental Science, Stamford University Bangladesh; Chairman, CAPS.]
