COP30: transitions, hope, and discontent

COP30, held in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025, left a bittersweet impression. Although it was one of the most well-attended COPs, where innovative topics related to food and climate finance were raised, the final agreement was lackluster. It excluded any reference to the phasing out of fossil fuels, the main drivers of climate change and leaving unanswered the question of the influence that industries exert in these scenarios. 

Let us first highlight the positive aspects. COP30 was the setting for discussions on the ‘transitions’ that are pending in a world that is changing due to the impacts of climate change. Indeed, various systems, including energy and food systems, are increasingly understood as both causes and consequences of climate change. That is why the call at this COP from agricultural, food, and environmental movements was to ‘transition’, that is, to think about and move towards other models—of food and energy—that allow us to prevent, mitigate, correct, and repair the effects of climate change more adequately. It is not only that both systems generate emissions that we must control, but also how to think about more sustainable and resilient systems that allow for better adaptation to the challenges of the future. Hence the need to propose a transition at different levels that includes various systems, actors, and strategies. 

The two articles in this Newsletter highlight the value of the COP discussion on various overlapping transitions. On the one hand, Adriana Torres’ article presents the importance of thinking about a ‘transition’ to food systems that are more sustainable and resilient to the effects of climate change. This issue, as relevant as it is urgent, had until now been ignored in discussions and appears as a central issue that calls for action and concrete measures. 

On the other hand, the article by Julián Gutiérrez Martínez and Paula Garavito Herrera presents an analysis of the ‘energy transition’ and the increasingly urgent need to establish precise targets for phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energies, as well as binding frameworks for business actors. 

Now for the negative. Both articles reveal a general discontent. Although increasingly present in the discussions, none of these issues were explicitly recognized in the final document, at least not in the desired manner. The most paradigmatic case was the failure to include a call to abandon fossil fuels in the final agreement, a discussion that led to several days of paralysis in the negotiations. In food, although the need to transform food systems was recognized, the references were vague, with no binding commitments or clear financing.

In both cases, one question that remained unanswered in the discussions was: How is it that, despite broad public consensus on certain issues, these issues are not included in the final agreements in these multilateral forums? What strategies does industry use to prevent agreements that are unfavorable to its interests?  Furthermore, why are there so many lobbyists and industry representatives in these scenarios—1,600 from the fossil fuel sector and 300 from agribusiness and livestock? Ultimately, is the COP a place of equitable participation, or does industry exert disproportionate influence? The debate is open.