Week one of COP30 in Belém was action-packed, with a lot of vital developments taking place— and its only just getting started. COP opened with Brazil’s president Luiz Lula ironically highlighting the importance of overcoming fossil-fuel dependence, while also promoting Brazil’s leadership in sustainable fuels, ignoring that his government just approved new drilling licensees in the Amazon a couple of weeks before the climate conference. It seems that every COP requires a new creative rebranding of the very thing we’re all trying to bury.
Then came Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Simon Stiell’s rather theatrical letter, essentially saying: how dare Indigenous Peoples enter the COP to raise their demands, how dare the Amazon rain on our negotiations, and how dare Brazil not build a climate-proof Nordic conference center in the middle of the rainforest? As if Indigenous Peoples’ presence at a climate conference is some kind of outrageous disruption rather than the most legitimate voice in the room.
Meanwhile, the Indigenous Peoples of the Brazilian Amazon did what actual climate leadership looks like: they walked into the venue, demanded justice, and put forward clear, grounded asks — protection of their territories, cancellation of destructive mega-projects, and a rejection of carbon-credit schemes that commodify forests instead of protecting them. And all of this happened before negotiations even started. That’s the added value of having the COP in a country like Brazil where indigenous and local communities have been fighting against extraction activities on their lands and territories for centuries.
What Actually Happened in Week One?
Despite the theatrics, week one delivered real political movement under the surface. The Brazilian presidency successfully avoided an agenda fight by launching consultations on four highly contentious issues – or as CAN International call it; The Fantastic Four –: climate finance obligations (Art. 9.1), unilateral trade measures, ambition/NDCs, and transparency.
They also laid the foundation for a broader political outcome. The presidency signaled that these discussions would feed into a unified “cover decision,” known informally as the Mutirão Decision, which could become one of the major deliverables of COP30.
At the same time, the consultations revealed clear divisions among countries on finance and ambition, giving the presidency a better sense of where compromises or pressure will be needed. This mapping of political positions is now guiding the next steps.
Finally, the consultations prepared the ground for week-two ministerial negotiations. With the announcement of an upcoming presidential note and specific ministerial pairings, the second week is now set to tackle the core political decisions that will define COP30’s outcome.
Just Transition Takes Centre Stage
The Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) became one of the most exciting developments. For the first time, Just Transition is being treated not as a side conversation but as a central negotiating pillar. G77+China, AGN, AILAC, AOSIS, India, China, Indonesia, Kenya and others expressed strong support — pushing the EU to finally reverse its nine-month opposition to an institutional arrangement.
This shift is huge. It means the political center of gravity moved — and it moved toward justice.
Adaptation Rises
Adaptation became the grounding force of week one. Developing countries are pushing for a tripling of adaptation finance by 2030, while fighting hard to keep the Global Goal on Adaptation from becoming a weak, symbolic text. The battle over Global Goan on Adaptation (GGA) indicators, timelines, and accountability mechanisms continues — and week two will decide whether we walk away with substance or slogans.
Loss and Damage
The Loss and Damage Fund opened its first call for proposals ($5–20 million), but disagreements over guidance and contributor responsibilities remain. The window is open — but the politics around who pays will shape what actually flows.
Fossil Fuels and the Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels (TAFF) Roadmap
Brazil, backed by 63 countries, called for a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. This could be historic — or dangerous — depending on whether week two embeds equity, finance, and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), or whether the roadmap becomes another tool that pushes developing countries faster than historical polluters.
Finance: The Battlefield Holding Everything Together
Finance at COP30 behaved exactly as expected: everywhere, nowhere, and deeply political. As it’s never just about numbers, it is about power, history, accountability, and who gets to define “ambition.” To understand the drama in week one, we need to recall a few truths that shape every finance fight. Developed countries promised $100 billion per year by 2020 (an already very low commitment given that the IPCC estimated that developing governments need between $2-3 trillion dollars per year to respond to climate crisis)— a promise repeated so many times that it became a ritual. They did not deliver. And the money they claim they delivered?
- Most of it was loans, not grants.
- Much of it was relabeled development aid.
- Some of it was just private investments counted as climate finance.
- Article 9.1 — the “obligation fight”
Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement says ‘Developed countries must provide finance to developing countries’. It is the only legally clear obligation the Global North has.
Developing countries demanded real, trackable commitments. Developed countries responded with the usual:
- “Legal obligation” suddenly becomes “interpretation”
- Private finance is treated as equivalent to public finance
- Political will evaporates the moment accountability appears
The fight is far from over.
- Article 9.5 — the transparency battle
Article 9.5 requires developed countries to report in advance what they will pay in the coming years. Without this, developing countries plan climate action in the dark. That’s why 9.5 turned into the surprise star of the week. Developing countries want stronger forward-looking reporting from rich countries. Rich countries don’t. Why? Because transparency exposes who is actually paying, and who is hiding behind accounting tricks.
- Adaptation Finance
Adaptation requires predictable public finance — not loans, not private investments, not “innovative instruments.” Despite endless speeches about resilience, developed countries still resist locking in a tripling of adaptation finance. They prefer soft language, vague timelines, or shifting adaptation into spaces (like NCQG) where accountability dissolves.
- NCQG
The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) will replace the $100bn goal. Developing countries want a delivery plan by 2026. Developed countries prefer numbers without plans, ambition without money, and responsibility without timelines.
- Structural barriers — the words rich countries refuse to say
Debt, austerity, and high cost of capital sit at the center of why climate action stalls. Yet developed countries insist on keeping these “disenablers” out of formal negotiations.
Finance shapes every outcome. Without it, Just Transition becomes rhetoric, adaptation becomes theory, and fossil phase-out becomes a demand only the poor are expected to meet.
Finally, if week one exposed the fractures, week two will expose the power. Whatever governments decide, the narrative has already shifted — thanks to Indigenous leadership, feminist movements, labour allies, and Global South civil society, who took the streets on Saturday for a powerful march for climate, freedom and liberation.
The Amazon is speaking. People are speaking. And justice is no longer a polite footnote — it’s the demand shaping COP30.