 | Analysis by Florence Colombo-Fouquet, ENGIE Vice President, ESG. |
Why was ENGIE at COP30?
To demonstrate that the energy transition is already underway — and that there will be no turning back. We also aimed to support an initiative launched by the Brazilian presidency to give biomolecules a genuine role in the energy transition, complementing green electricity. We can welcome the Belém 4x pledge, an international commitment to quadruple the production and use of sustainable fuels (biofuels, biogas, hydrogen, e-methane) by 2035.
This aligns perfectly with our strategy based on the alliance between the electron and the molecule.
How did you experience these few days in Brazil?
There was a real sense of urgency among participating countries. President Lula also chose Belém as a symbolic location. On site, the effects of climate change are extremely tangible: temperatures reached 35°C with 80% humidity. I realized, as a European person, how difficult daily life already is there.
Why did this COP turn out to be disappointing overall?
Belém took place in an international context marked by the absence of the United States. The Brazilian presidency led the negotiations but realistically could not achieve a highly ambitious outcome in today’s geopolitical climate. For example, the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels remains a major source of disagreement between countries. The European Union, several Latin American nations, small island states and the Africa Group openly regretted the lack of clear signals on ending oil, gas, and coal, stating that COP Belém “missed its appointment with history” while the +1.5°C target is now slipping out of reach.
However, the Brazilian presidency set the path for the next COP by keeping this issue on the agenda for 2026. It also secured an agreement on adaptation, including the goal of tripling adaptation finance by 2035.
Did the “Amazon COP” advance efforts against deforestation?
Again, results were mixed. The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) was launched and collected 6.5 billion dollars. But some countries consider this insufficient and far below the identified needs.
What positive elements do you see in this COP?
Even if Belém did not raise global ambition, COP30 has several merits: it stabilizes the multilateral framework, launches the adaptation workstream, and sets a structured roadmap for COP31, 32 and 33.
One notable step forward is adaptation. Diplomats progressed on defining criteria to compare countries in terms of climate impacts and resilience — assessing infrastructure, health systems, water and food security, and agriculture. They called for tripling adaptation funding, but only by 2035, while several countries, including the Africa Group, called for 2030.
The technical modalities of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) remain contested and have been deferred to the mid-year sessions in Bonn in 2026.
Other major technical decisions have also been pushed to Bonn 2026: tracking the Global Stocktake and the new trajectories that countries must set for 2030 (NDCs).
In conclusion, what is your takeaway from COP30?
Belém will be remembered as a COP of stabilization rather than transformation. A diplomatic failure was avoided, some political fault lines were clarified, and new workstreams were opened. But this COP did not deliver responses at the scale of the climate emergency.
And for ENGIE?
For ENGIE and for all energy players committed to the transition, Belém confirms the importance of accelerating low-carbon solutions, strengthening adaptation, and actively contributing to the development of future NDC trajectories in collaboration with States. This COP also helped spotlight biomolecules (biofuels, biomethane, hydrogen, synthetic fuels…) as a key lever for the transition, which is highly relevant for ENGIE.