The Forest COP-out? What COP30 means for forests
10 December 2025
The 30th international climate conference in Belém, Brazil hoped to draw the world’s attention to the importance of the Amazon Basin and forests more generally. The roller-coaster of highs (proposed roadmaps to reduce fossil emissions and deforestation), and lows (gutting ambition, sidelining Indigenous voices, ignoring science) featured both floods and a fire.
Ultimately, some renamed the ‘forest COP’ the biofuels COP, not just due to ubiquitous biofuel advertising and lobbyists, but because of the launch of the Belém Commitment for Sustainable Fuels, which aims to quadruple non-fossil fuels such as biofuel by 2035. It was proposed by Brazil, and supported by Japan, Italy, India and others, but greeted with horror by many. Peg Putt, Biomass Action Network, said, “Promoting liquid and gaseous fuels derived from wood in the Belém 4X Pledge, together with continued expansion of solid woody biomass use as renewable energy is a dangerous distraction. The combustion of wood for bioenergy releases massive amounts of stored greenhouse gases immediately. The true carbon cost rarely appears on any national balance sheet.”
The Mutirão Declaration
A week into the COP, hope remained that something remarkable could be achieved, as roadmaps for meeting the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow Leaders Declaration (to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030) were included in the draft “Mutirão Declaration”. Sadly, despite Brazil’s hard work, roadmaps were later dropped in favour of voluntary initiatives.
Indeed, the final text doesn’t even mention the root causes of the climate crisis – fossil fuels, deforestation, forest degradation – or the global economic system and governance structures that drive them. The flame of future action was kept alight by Colombia’s agreement to organise the first global conference on a “just” fossil fuel phase out and COP30 President André Aranha Corrêa do Lago’s proposal to craft a roadmap to halt and reverse deforestation.
Tropical Forest Forever Facility
Perhaps the hottest forest topic in the run-up to COP was the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), Brazil’s proposal to close the gap in funding for tropical forests and to secure the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Its creation of new investor markets was much criticised. In the end, the hoped-for $25 billion investment initially reached only $5.6 billion, $2 billion of which came from Indonesia and Brazil; Germany later committed another $1.16 billion over the next 10 years.
Fern’s recent TFFF report outlines complexities and concerns, and our COP event, Putting Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Afro-descendant Peoples at the centre of forest protection, showcased examples of projects in Liberia, Mesoamerica and Democratic Republic of Congo already achieving success without the need for complex financing. As Global Forest Coalition said, “If Brazil and Indonesia have a total of $2 billion, why not channel it directly to Indigenous Peoples and local communities to strengthen solutions like agroecology and promote actions to curb the expansion of deforestation, mining, and oil extraction?”
Adaptation finance
When it comes to finance to help countries adapt to the climate crisis (often by supporting forest resilience), there was some positive news: a demand from the world’s poorest nations to triple adaptation finance was agreed. Many felt it was not enough and the deadline was pushed from 2030 to 2035, but it was still welcomed by organisations such as World Resources Institute.
Bioeconomy
Two different visions of the bioeconomy were on show at the conference:
One, the socio-bioeconomy, working with local people to produce local products – such as (mouth-numbing!) jambu and acai – whilst keeping the forest standing was visible in small stalls in the green zone, the Agrizone and factories down by the docks.
Two, the bioeconomy, razing forests with the aim of increasing agricultural land to make short-lived products and fuel was visible in the single-use cups, plates and cutlery that accompanied every snack, and in the Toyota stall advertising “a hybrid flex-fuel pickup truck and a model powered by biomethane”. Such greenwashing was everywhere and quickly called out by Climate Action Network and Greenpeace.
Carbon-trading
Known as Article 6 in negotiation-speak, forest-interested parties always want to know what has happened with Article 6.2 (carbon-trading between countries) and Article 6.4 (the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism). Guidance on both agenda items had been settled at COP29 and all proposals to reopen (so as to weaken guidance on non-performance and reversals) were rejected, sending a clear signal that the Supervisory Body should stay its course and focus on implementation. More worryingly, the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets announced its “shared principles”, endorsed by several governments (including Canada and New Zealand), despite the continuing proof that such markets actually harm efforts to tackle the climate crisis.
Mitigation workplan
The Mitigation Work Programme that aims to “urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation” has consistently disappointed, but this year’s emphasis on forests was an opportunity to add strong language about protection and primary forests. Although some was added, overrepresented logging interests tempered the outcome, and the Biomass Action Network were concerned it made matters worse: “industrial logging of forests […] gained primacy over genuine forest protection, via coded language endorsing ‘sustainable management of forests’ littered throughout the important Mitigation Work Program.”
Where was the EU?
In general, the EU was most noticeable in its absence. It did not agree its Nationally Determined Contribution to reduce emissions by 66.25-72.5% until days before the COP and didn’t host a Pavilion. Even Peter Liese, climate policy spokesperson for the European People’s Party, agreed this had “serious consequences”, meaning “no positive alliance between China and the European Union” at a time when traditional alliances no longer exist. The EU did strongly advocate that Carbon Markets be governed by science-based rules, which would effectively exclude or sideline forest, and they also repledged to support Action for the Congo Basin Forests. Most noticeable, however, was the EU’s proud support at the COP for the EU Deforestation Regulation, even while voting forward a proposal to postpone it at home.
Can we end on a positive note?
This COP was marked by the return of protest and an incredible number of civil society houses sharing information, joy and solutions. In addition, there were significant moments, including the Brazilian government’s demarcation of 10 Indigenous lands and the organisation of a major People’s Summit. Additionally, the Forest and Land Tenure pledge was renewed with US$1.8 billion in funding through 2030; the Central African Forest Initiative also announced more funds for forest protection not tied to the carbon market or the TFFF; and the Intergovernmental Land Tenure Commitment engaged to “[s]cale up land tenure rights for Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and People of African Descent […] by at least 80 million hectares by 2030” – an excellent start, if promises are kept.
Civil society actively led events in numerous informal spaces outside official COP zones. Furthermore, groups like CAPOEIRA for the Climate showed how forests can regenerate themselves over an 85-year period.
To be in Belém was to be surrounded by people still willing to listen to science, and to fight for peoples’ rights and just solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises. As climate minister of low-lying island nation Tuvalu Maina Talia said, “after 30 years, this [COP] process is still failing us, so we will not wait … [but work] to secure our survival”.
Image: Antonio Scorza / Shutterstock
Categories: News, Forest Watch, Bioeconomy, Carbon trading, Finance for forests and peoples
