As the sun set over Belém, Brazil, on December 15, 2025, delegates from 194 countries wrapped up COP30—a climate summit that was as much a symbol as it was a stage for tough global negotiations. Belém, perched on the edge of the Amazon rainforest and battered by flooding, pollution, and inequality, was chosen to underscore the urgency of the climate crisis. Yet, for all its dramatic setting and the palpable energy in its pavilions, the conference concluded with an agreement that many described as ambitious in rhetoric but cautious in substance.
The final text of COP30 mentioned food only once, failing to address food systems as a whole, despite a growing scientific consensus that transforming agriculture and food production is essential for climate progress. According to Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and reporting by Karly Kelso, Vrashabh Kapate, and Sarah Swain, this omission was especially glaring given the groundswell of demands from indigenous communities, local leaders, farmers, and youth who filled the event’s side rooms and halls with calls to action.
But while the formal negotiations fell short, the COP30 Action Agenda emerged as a key delivery mechanism. This agenda organizes governments, development banks, companies, and civil society around six thematic axes—including food and agriculture—to move projects from ambition to implementation. Within this framework, EDF advanced two flagship initiatives that show how high-level commitments can translate into measurable impact.
The Dairy Methane Action Alliance (DMAA), launched at COP28 and now part of the Action Agenda’s Axis 3, targets dairy methane—a greenhouse gas responsible for over 60% of on-farm agricultural emissions. Major global companies such as Danone, Starbucks, and General Mills, together representing more than $100 billion in annual sales, have joined the alliance. Five companies have already published their Dairy Methane Action Plans and inventories, and EDF hosts bi-monthly sessions to help these companies overcome barriers and share best practices. As EDF puts it, “when governments, financiers, companies, and civil society coordinate around clear sector goals, delivery accelerates.”
Equally significant is the Aquatic Blue Food Coalition, which brings together 65 members, including 16 governments, to elevate the role of fish, shellfish, aquatic plants, and algae in food security and climate resilience. This coalition’s work led to a watershed moment in Mexico, where—after a year of stakeholder engagement—blue foods were officially integrated into the country’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for climate adaptation and mitigation. This move, finalized on December 15, 2024, is already being hailed as a model for how targeted advocacy can drive real policy change.
Yet, despite these pockets of progress, the primary barrier to scaling up climate solutions in both dairy and aquatic food systems remains finance. Ocean-based solutions receive just 1–2% of all climate funds, and proven methane-reduction methods for dairy require significant upfront investment—costs that are often prohibitive for farmers and local producers. EDF is piloting creative blended finance models, such as the Dairy Impact Fund, which layers corporate offtake agreements, philanthropic grants, and impact capital to make low-cost loans available. The Blue Food Coalition is also advocating for policy shifts and practical mechanisms—like community-led funds and sustainability-linked loans—to ensure resources reach those who need them most.
Finance was also a headline issue across the broader COP30 proceedings. The summit’s central challenge was to consolidate a global financial plan to help developing countries transition to greener economies. Delegates discussed raising $1.3 trillion in public and private funding per year by 2035, doubling adaptation funding by 2025, and then tripling it by 2035. The operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund, first created at COP28, was also on the table. However, many observers lamented the lack of specific deadlines, legal obligations, and solid guarantees—concerns echoed by the French Minister for Ecological Transition, Monique Barbut, who called the agreement “an agreement without ambition.”
Trade, too, took on new prominence. COP30 established a dedicated dialogue to explore how trade and climate policies intersect, with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the World Trade Organization, and the International Trade Centre as key stakeholders. UNCTAD also launched a guide for policymakers on leveraging trade and investment to decarbonize economies at lower costs, and helped lead initiatives such as the Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade. Countries called for the tripling of adaptation finance by 2035, but questions remain about baselines and the types of financing that will count toward this goal.
Despite these steps, the most controversial aspect of COP30 was the omission of any explicit plan to phase out fossil fuels. Eighty countries pushed for a roadmap to end coal, oil, and gas use, but consensus was blocked by major producers like China and India. More than 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists attended the summit, a presence that many environmental NGOs blamed for weakening the negotiations. COP President André Corrêa do Lago acknowledged the lack of ambition, promising two voluntary roadmaps—one for combating deforestation and another for a fair transition away from fossil fuels—but their impact will be limited by their non-binding nature.
Indigenous communities, central to the Amazon’s conservation, made their voices heard through protests, blocked access, and calls for land guarantees and decision-making power. However, the final agreement included no structural measures for these demands, leading NGOs and activist groups to label COP30 a “sham of climate justice.” The contrast between the event’s symbolic location and the minimal progress on indigenous rights and climate justice was stark.
Multilateralism, for all its resilience, showed its strain. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres put it, “no country can solve the defining challenges alone.” But the need for consensus meant that even a single dissenting country could weaken the final text—an outcome that left only 40% of countries submitting new national plans (NDCs) and the United States absent from the proceedings. UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell described the atmosphere as “turbulent geopolitical waters,” marked by polarization and climate denialism.
Outside the formal negotiations, the Brazilian presidency highlighted a wave of voluntary commitments: $5.5 billion for the International Fund for Tropical Forest Conservation (with at least 20% earmarked for indigenous peoples and local communities), a $300 million Belém Health Action Plan targeting climate-related health threats, and public service companies pledging $66 billion a year for renewables and $82 billion for energy transition. A coalition of cities, regions, and businesses also declared plans to cut CO₂ emissions by over 850,000 tonnes by 2024.
Looking ahead to COP31, set for Türkiye with Australia leading the negotiations, many are calling for stronger political recognition of food systems, continuity in the Action Agenda, and more robust financing mechanisms to unlock capital for on-the-ground solutions. Whether COP30 will be remembered as the “COP of truth” or a missed opportunity depends on the will of states, institutions, and civil society to demand climate governance that matches scientific imperatives and the rights of those living in the world’s most vulnerable regions. As António Guterres reminded the world, “COP30 is over, but our work is not.”
