After my first two days at COP30 in Brazil, I was immersed in Brazil’s culture and learned from representatives of countries around the world.

My first day at the conference was spent in the Green Zone. At the Conference of the Parties (COP), the Green Zone is largely dedicated to demonstrating tangible climate solutions and expanding public awareness of environmental solutions. The Green Zone is open to all, and features pavilions showcasing Brazilian governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private companies. Additionally, the Green Zone promoted national and Amazônia culture, featuring indigenous vendors, local cuisine, and art. Furthermore, an objective of the event was to raise awareness and engage the population of the host city, Belém, with the UN’s climate agenda. I was able to visit a variety of pavilions, but the ones that interested me the most included a talk by the vice president of Brazil, Geraldo Alckmin, a COP and coffee: Oceans talk with Deloitte, and an exhibition by Be8 Energy. Be8 showcased a semi-truck powered by renewable biodiesel. Additionally, the Green Zone featured pavilions advocating for an end to the genocide in Palestine, as Israel’s invasion has devastated the natural environment of the region. Overall, the Green Zone provided me with an immersive experience that framed my perspective as I spent the rest of my week in the Green Zone.

My second day at the conference was spent in the Blue Zone. The Blue Zone is where the “magic” happens. And by magic, I of course mean official climate negotiations. Access to the Blue Zone is restricted to official delegations. For most of the day, I explored the delegation pavilions with fellow UConn@COP fellows, Andy Zhang and Saanya Sharma. The pavilions featured each country’s environmental commitments and national culture. It was extremely interesting to see the variation and organization of each country’s pavilion. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, China, Germany, and, of course, the host country, Brazil, were all large and featured alongside the conference’s main promenade. In addition to exploring the pavilions, I sat in on a variety of panels throughout the day. The panels I listened to explored the business coalitions underlying Brazil’s decarbonization, what structural reforms are needed to transition electrical grids away from fossil fuels, and climate resilience engineering. As I reflected upon my day, I realized these panels each demonstrated different methods of change. The panel on Brazilian businesses and climate resilience engineering emphasized the outsized role private involvement must play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This contrasted with the renewable energy panel, which largely focused on making large structural changes, emphasizing societal and governance shifts, including permitting reforms, investing in grids in anticipation of increasing demand, and increasing grid interconnections. Overall, the panels and pavilions demonstrated the diversity of climate solutions on display at COP30, and I am excited to continue to explore the conference over the next 3 days.

Brett Hurley is a second year law student.

COP30 marks the ten-year anniversary since the Paris Climate Change Agreement was passed. Delegates have been speaking about pushing this year’s COP to be the “COP of Implementation” because of the serious inaction that has been taking place since the Paris Climate Change Agreement. One of the key parts of the agreement was keeping global temperature under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Currently, we are on the cusp of 1.5 degrees Celsius and if current trends continue, this target is unachievable. This is a huge point of discussion at COP30. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are continuously advocating for this goal to not be overlooked and undermined. From what it seems, developed countries do not seem to be too bothered by the fact that this goal is not going to be achieved. In fact, they have shifted their attention to being just below 2 degrees Celsius. 

So, why is this problematic? Many SIDS cannot afford the stakes of the climate projections in regard to global temperatures rising to about 2 degrees Celsius. They are barely surviving with current climate trends as of right now. Tuvalu, in particular, gave an extremely powerful speech at a formal high-level COP30 proceeding. Their delegate said that “the 1.5 target is not just a political aspiration but an obligation”. It is a matter that needs urgent attention and need. If change continues to fail to happen, Tuvalu’s fate becomes extremely doomed. If developed countries fail to keep the 1.5 target in mind and if they continue to be greedy with their donations to the Loss and Damage Fund, the sovereign nation of Tuvalu and many other SIDS will cease to exist by 2050. That’s why action needs to take place now.  

There have been several discussions and plans to implement programs for countries to provide support and aid for those that are disproportionately impacted. Developed countries have even, to a certain extent, owned up to some responsibility for the vast damage they have caused to our environment. However, plans and discussions do not mean execution by any means. We simply do not have the luxury of ten more years until our climate rises past 1.5 degrees Celsius and truly, we have achieved irreparable damage to the environment. 

So, what’s the hold up? Why aren’t developed nations contributing to the Loss and Damage Fund more? After all, they are the ones that are most responsible for the state of our environment currently. There are three main points of contention for developed countries. The first being the admission of some sort of guilt and responsibility for their role in causing climate change. It could, in the future, become a highly legal problem for those countries, and they often hesitate to donate in reaction. Second being that there is a lack of practicality in the mechanisms of developing finance principles for what the fund can be used for. Developed nations can argue that it is hard to tell what a natural climatic event versus an anthropogenic-linked climate event is. So, distributing money is harder because of this struggle. Thirdly, they want to use that money to deal with issues in their own nation and prioritize their people’s needs first. Unfortunately, I do not believe any of these points are valid. The first point regarding legal responsibility is that it is merited. Consequences for actions, whether good or bad, are always going to come around one way or the other. There is no reason to hesitate on the basis of what could happen in the future, even if legal action against the countries who have largely contributed to climate change is in good regard. Millions of people are being displaced because of climatic events; the fund provides a way for them to cope with these changes, and it is important that they are addressed. The second point of contention is also invalid. At this point, every natural disaster event is linked to anthropogenic causes. Even if it follows regular weather patterns, the intensity of the storm surely is linked to anthropogenic causes. There are simply no longer any cases of natural climate variability that exist in modern society that are not linked to anthropogenic causes. Lastly, the third point of contention is, again, unfair to the people of the world. People who have done little to nothing to contribute to the emissions are facing the most amount of impact from climate change. It is a matter of moral obligation that nations put humanity first and contribute to the fund as part of their moral responsibility to the world after the position they put the rest of the world in.  

COP30 must be the “COP of Implementation”. We simply do not have enough time left to reverse the damage that we have caused. I hope developed nations and developing nations are able to come together to come to a consensus that puts Mother Earth at the forefront of all of our solutions. Mother Earth needs to be protected at all costs, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that we are putting in the effort to do so.  

Kanika Chaturvedi is a senior Environmental Studies major.

My first day at COP was oddly both what I was expecting and equally overwhelming. Before attending COP30, I had done research on previous COPs and was familiar with COP possessing a slow mediation process where countries often do not reach a “satisfying” conclusion. It was a known fact that different nations contain different perspectives, which consequently makes negotiation extremely difficult. There are notable deep-rooted historical divides and groupings of cultures, and while I was aware of this, seeing these relationships firsthand was a culture shock compared to social and racial groupings I had witnessed in America on a national level. One of the first events I attended at COP was the COP Presidency Consultation on Mountains and Climate Change. This meeting was the final consultation that was established to draw a conclusion on how to move forward in addressing climate issues in mountain regions. The Mountain Group, represented by a delegate from Kyrgyzstan as well as Nepal and Georgia, were the main drivers in proposing annual discussions on mountains and climate change. These groups also wanted to instate climate change in mountainous regions as an agenda item. The European Union (EU) countered this request by claiming that their region also has mountains and feels an annual conversation, as well as having this topic as an agenda item, is unnecessary. They stated that this workstream seemed counterproductive and it was preferable to have a streamlined subsidiary. Japan also agreed with this rhetoric and claimed that despite having mountain ranges in their region, they also aligned with the EU. I found it interesting that despite mountain regions collectively forming negotiations and counter-responses, the regions seemed to separate into groups: lower-income countries and economic and political powerhouses.

Later on, I also attended the COP Presidency Consultation on the Special Needs and Circumstances of Africa, which I found especially insightful in terms of highlighting the dynamics between groups of countries. Colombia began the discussion by highlighting the regional bias of focusing on Africa and how this focus delegitimizes COP concerns. Pakistan also agreed with Colombia’s point and added that developing countries shouldn’t “compete vulnerabilities,” because all developing countries should be spotlighted at COP—a term that was echoed throughout the conference. The African Group disagreed, emphasizing that their unique position as a region that contributed less than 4% to global emissions yet struggles the most with climate change consequences raises a specific concern that needs to be addressed. Tanzania argued that this conference was “not a vulnerability contest” but rather a focused discussion on Africa utilizing “information already on the table.” South Africa reiterated the claim that Africa contributes the least to climate change but is subject to so many of its adverse effects, emphasizing that the region’s women, youth, and rural communities were most vulnerable. The South African delegate also stated that the country was already grappling with heightened food insecurity, noting that climate change caused a 34% decrease in food production on the continent. Zimbabwe, the Caribbean Community, and several other African countries emphasized that the Paris Agreement did not need to be rewritten, but rather implemented to provide attention to Africa.

Nevertheless, a multitude of countries sided with Colombia’s initial statement, mainly Guatemala, Peru, Uruguay, and other Latin American countries. Much of the discussion converged into a discussion of Latin America’s own hardships faced by climate change. Uruguay’s delegate (also representing Ecuador) described that “Africa is repeatedly brought up” in COP conversations and that it has consistently been “controversial.” Uruguay mentioned that Latin America specifically needs more funds to address climate change, and as the discussion came to a close, the country reiterated the point that they agreed with their fellow countries of specifically “Latin America.” The Paris Agreement addresses developing countries as a marginalized whole, and they do not support “separating Africa” as a distinguished group. I find this conversation as a whole extremely interesting, as I feel that it underscores the desire for countries to push nationalism while engaging in cultural or ethnic groupings depending on their identity.

Latin America’s stance reflects a concern that elevating Africa as a distinct category could undermine their visibility. Africa may be marginalized or facing a climate crisis in a distinct way, but other countries seem to view the addressing of these issues as a threat to their region’s focus. Latin American countries share a culture and climate (as well as climate issues), which creates a solidarity based on history and culture. However, a shared solidarity can also isolate alternative regions as “others” who are a threat to their own climate focus, a dynamic that is likely emphasized within this COP negotiation.

Toriana Grooms is a junior majoring in political science and English with a minor in German.

 

When I sat down for my first session of COP watching the delegates at work, I didn’t know what to expect.

What I found was a circle of tables, facing inward, with screens in the middle showing a policy document. One party leads the discussion and would hear out countries as world leaders decide the text, semantics, and phrasing of policy that will impact billions of lives. As I watched the parties work, I was struck by the push and pull of compromise, argument, and defiance. I listened as parties unanimously struck entire paragraphs of text while having unresolved conflict over the wording of a single sentence.

When we prepare for COP, we spend time researching the ins and outs of renewable energy, climate finance, and NDC’s. What we don’t learn until we step foot in the blue zone is the meticulous war that wages inside the conference rooms. Representatives are not just powerful, they are strategic. When they enter a room of delegates leagues apart from them, they have to learn what battles to let go, how to stand firm when it matters the most, and how to account for dozens of other nations doing the same.

This process involved sacrifice. I watched the delegate from Great Britain heave a heavy sigh as she motioned for her contributions to be removed. I watched the understanding dawn on her that the nations would never receive the consensus needed to ratify her statements. I also saw a representative from Sudan stand by keeping a single line from the text, even when the entire room was against him.

As students and young people living in a climate crisis, we expect our passion to take us to the end. We are frustrated when the change we want is given to us in miniscule doses. What I didn’t realize is that the delegates share the same frustration. They want to stand up and shout from the rooftops the same way we do as students. But that is not how policy is made. It is created through carefully learning what battles to lose. Most importantly, it is created through knowing when to let challenges pass and when to stand up and stay standing.

These aren’t skills taught in a class. There is no Negotiations 1010 course offered at UConn. When I return to the states and face my public policy coursework, and hopefully my future career in policy, these skills are going to be vital for my success. I believe that young activists should start honing their communication skills as soon as possible. COP has taught me that to be successful and persuasive, being knowledgeable isn’t always enough. Top-down, end goal thinking, knowing how to hone confidence in discomfort, and knowing when to take a stand will take you far. It is eye opening, especially when coming from a background in activism, a culture shaped in doing and fighting for what is right no matter the drawbacks.

As we begin the final days of COP, I am so excited to see what new lessons this journey teaches me.

Claire Lawrence is a senior studying Applied Data Analysis and Public Policy.

The COP 30 conference is a one-of-a-kind experience that you can never fully prepare yourself for. I have never been in the same room with such a diverse group of people with all different backgrounds and stories. Walking into the blue zone, you see a long hallway of pavilions, sponsored by a variety of different countries, NGOS, and companies. Each pavilion had a different purpose, but the overall goal was to educate the community about their organization and success.  

I was able to attend a panel conduct by the Water for Climate Pavillion regarding NAPs and NDCS: Sectoral and Regional Insights. During this panel there was a variety of different panelists, such as Juanita Ariza Guzman (the Economic Commissioner for Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Nations (ECLAC),) Soraya Salcedo (the Deputy Director of International Cooperation of Colombia), and Paula Martinelli (Global Water Advocacy Officer for Wetlands International). These panelists all worked in a variety of fields, but with the same goal in mind: to preserve water in our world and to create a policy in support. However, there were a lot of perspectives and technical progress that I was unaware of. For example, I was able to talk to Paula Martinelli after the panel about her experience working in policy for water and other countries. She expressed the daily challenges she faces every day working in international affairs. She is constantly working with other countries to help them develop, to implement and/or improve their freshwater ecosystem. As much as you think countries would appreciate the support provided by an NGO, such as Wetland International, there is constant backlash that must be discussed. NGOs like Wetland International are doing their best to preserve water and support communities that are suffering from access to freshwater. But some countries only see the value of improving these issues if there is an economic benefit. In addition, as an advocacy officer in wetlands not only are you advocating for the community but also for the ecosystem.  

This talk was one of the many examples where a variety of different opinions must compromise to reach a consensus at COP. Something as simple preserving freshwater may not be a priority for one country as it is another, so language supporting this preservation is difficult to synthesize. This leads to the question of how important, actionable, decisions can actually be made.  

Conferences like COP30 assist in putting countries and organizations with similar interests in the same room and finding that compromise. However, this is much easier said than done. This continued to be seen throughout the conference with many countries trying to find common ground and reach agreements.  

I look forward to talking to more policy advocates about the daily struggles they face working in international relations and how those struggles are mitigated in my last few days at COP.  

Sanya Sharma is a senior environmental engineering major.

Entering the United Nations annual climate summit to a police barricade and indigenous communities selling their products outside in the intense heat and humidity was not something I anticipated. However, that was slightly naive of me, because we are at an international summit with international leaders. However, the tension between who is heard and who is just being listened to was palpable throughout the conference. Before getting to the conference, we had seen the headlines about the protests by local communities, but I did not realize the proliferation of the divide.

The division manifested in many ways. One being the pavilion layout. For the most parts the pavilions were dispersed randomly with no real connection between who was paired together until you got to the African countries. They, however, were all grouped together and positioned in a corner that could be easily missed or avoided. No other geographic area, or countries facing the similar issues were grouped besides them. Which was extremely disheartening to see. Beyond that, those were the conversations that described the actual work being done to help local communities.

I attended a panel at the Côte d’Ivoire on their local climate change mitigation tactics. The panel highlighted what was being done in Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, and Cameroon. These countries face similar issues of seed preservation between seasons, drought, and deforestation. However, their local organizations do what is called a climate caravan to educate local communities on how to solve these issues but also what issues they are facing to help educate subnational and national governments. Beyond, just the power of what they were talking about and hearing the amazing work they were doing on the ground. They also translated the entire talk for us during the panel so we could understand. They were truly amazing people doing amazing work, but they were tucked into the last corner of the pavilion section where no one could see them.

Another level of division what between the accessibility of knowledge. In panels with more developed countries, they discussed higher thematic trends in an abstract and somewhat pointless, in my opinion, way. A panel hosted by researchers and academic from Germany discussed the need for building green careers and green job by investing in immigration. A majority of this panel was very abstract and big picture ideas that are nice but they provide no ways for nations to act. Building capacity is wonderful, but how accessible is it to build? What steps should be taken? Who is benefiting from the capacity building the country or a developed nation looking to have immigrants with that skill set?

This division between who is being heard and listened to is the most evident when discussing financing the loss and damages fund. It is apparent that developed nations, international monetary bodies, and international aid organizations are not designed to help enable the country to build resiliency of any kind, financial, social, political, or environmental. The methods currently in place do not allow funds to be distributed to building political infrastructure and knowledge on these topics, they are currently only designed for specific projects. This puts these countries in a cycle of never getting the money to prevent these issues from happening or being forward thinking. This division is largely echoed throughout the larger Loss and Damage Fund COP negotiations as well. The division here was what countries have money to spend and what countries need to spend money to survive. As you can probably infer they are not seeing eye to eye. Which is just defeating because if we cannot come together for our collective earth what can we come together for?

The last major division I noted was the separation between the international policy making the private negotiations, the informational sessions, the pavilion discussions, and the public area in the green zone. A vast majority of the attendees are disconnected from one another and do not hear the lessons the others are teaching. Sure, we are all physically in the same space but are we all really present?

Caroline Keary is a master’s student in the Social Responsibility and Impact in Business program.

Attending COP@30 has been a privilege; it has offered me the opportunity to engage with people from all over the world and hear diverse perspectives on climate solutions. The conference is well organized overall, though the usual delays in starting meetings were noticeable. With negotiations, side events, and pavilion talks happening simultaneously, it can quickly become overstimulating; however, I have already learned so much from the wide range of sessions I’ve attended.

The most meaningful part of COP@30 for me has been speaking directly with delegated and youth representatives. I had an amazing conversation with a student from the University of Oslo representing YOUNGO – the official children and youth constituency of the UNFCCC. We discussed pathways for youth involvement, and the types of actions young people have taken within the climate movement. I also had the opportunity to speak with members of both the French and Algerian delegation including Algerian negotiator Khaled Bassim with whom I discussed elements of the Sharm El-Sheikh Implementation Plan, which focuses on operationalizing funding for loss and damage, since there had been a new report about it posted the previous night.

Despite how valuable these conversations have been, the negotiations remain (in my opinion) the most interesting part of my experience. Negotiations take place in large rooms filled with country representatives, each attempting –often unsuccessfully- to reach a consensus. So far, two negotiations in particular have deeply shaped my understanding. The first was “Climate Change and Mountains” and the second one was “Special Needs and Circumstances of Africa”, which happened on Monday – my first day at the COP. This last session was intended to address four concrete agenda points outlined by the COP President, yet none of the points were discussed. As the delegate form the United Republic of Tanzania put it, the session devolved into a “vulnerability contest” between Africa versus the rest of the world. Countries such as Chile, Panama and Guatemala questioned why a meeting focused on Africa was necessary, arguing that many developing regions face equal levels of suffering. Most Latin American countries spoke in similar alignment under ILAc (Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbeans). The delegates from South Africa and the African Group attempted –unsuccessfully- to bring the discussion back to the agenda reminding the room that despite contributing less than 4% of global emissions, Africa is both one of the least responsible and most vulnerable regions, projected to surpass the 1.5C threshold as early as 2040.

In response, one of the delegates argued that the meeting violated Article 4.8 of the Paris Agreement, which in my opinion was a complete misinterpretation. Article 4.8 emphasized equity and differentiated responsibilities, not uniform treatment under different circumstances. The entire meeting felt unproductive and at times, unprofessional, with several parties appearing to delay the conversation instead of contributing to it, which is why I am looking forward to reading the official written report of this meeting!

Overall, there are countless negotiations happening at all times. A lot of them are focused on specific paragraphs of previous agreements which are very interesting, but I especially enjoy the presidency-led meetings where the structure is clearer and discussions more focused.

Over the next few days, I plan to continue speaking with delegates from different countries, attend additional negotiations, and ask questions whenever possible. This experience has already expanded my understanding of international climate diplomacy, and I am excited to continue learning!

Malak Nechnach is a senior studying Physiology and Neurobiology with a minor in Mathematics.

These past few days have been amazing! My first days were spent wandering around and feeling a little lost, but once I became familiar with the venue it was exciting to see all the different pavilions. It felt strange to walk through the space and see pavilions for China and India filled with activity, while the United States was essentially entirely absent despite being the largest historical emitter. Within several sessions, it felt frustrating because people talked in circles. The same phrases kept coming up, the same statements about urgency, the same calls to action. Yet it felt like no one wanted to put themselves on the line for the collective wellbeing for change to happen. I found myself wanting more honesty and more direction. It was hard to watch so many people speak passionately without feeling any movement toward concrete solutions. This experience also in many ways highlighted the larger paradox of global climate action. We need a coordinated global response to climate change, but it requires the willingness of countries to participate.

 

Every nation needs Nationally Determined Contributions and climate goals, yet it must be left to each country to decide how to

 reach those goals because climate impacts differ so widely. This makes it incredibly difficult to come to a consensus when so many stakeholders have different needs, capacities, and responsibilities. Even with these challenges, I am excited for what is still ahead. I am looking forward to exploring more of the Blue Zone programming, attending sessions that focus on food systems and adaptation, and see how negotiators approach the later stages of discussions as COP starts to wind down. There is still so much to learn, and I am excited for the days to come. 

Andy Zhang is a senior studying environmental economics and environmental sciences.

Overwhelming is the first feeling that consumed me as I walked into the COP30 venue. Never have I been surrounded by such a diverse group of people and cultures.  It is hard for me to comprehend how delegates representing the over 190 UN countries present are peacefully existing under one (ENORMOUS) roof when their countries have historically had major conflicts.

While cordial, tensions were observed in the first policy discussion that I attended. This meeting was an informal session discussing the Policy and Strategy for Gender Equality and the Environment. I was disappointed to hear the lack of support for women’s equality and education in the language of the legislation document. The male Russian delegate requested that language be removed that required the equal representation of men and women in each country’s delegation. The male Iranian delegate backed this statement by saying that they do not have the resources to have equal representation of women in the delegation. Doubling down on this, both parties supported the change in wording from supporting/requiring “education” on gender and climate change to “training.” If education is not given to both men and women, then no, there will not be equal representation of men and women in the delegation (which extremely frustrated me). Additionally, the Saudi Arabian delegate, who was a woman, agreed with Russia and Iran and expressed disagreements with the advancement of women’s reproductive rights.

I know, I know, my first thoughts were also to be extremely upset and disappointed by these delegates (especially the woman), but I am not anymore. I cannot blame the individual delegates for statements that they may or may not support personally. Before this conference, I did not realize that delegates are given strict instructions on the stances they are allowed support. Deviating from the guidelines set by the higher levels of government could result in firing or more extreme measures in some countries.

There is so much more I could go on about and so many valuable observations and pieces of information I have learned in the first 3 days I have spent at COP. I will quickly fire off some final thoughts (some inspiring and some discouraging) since landing in Belem: The culture in the Amazonia region of Brazil is deep and rich, the Indigenous Tribes in Brazil do not feel like their voices are getting proper representation in the conference, it is controversial that Brazil is advocating for Rainforest conversation while expanding oil drilling, it is crazy that international legislation is being written before my eyes, and how can any real action come from these “agreements” that are only enforceable by “peer pressure” and driven by economic benefits?

I am extremely grateful for this experience and cannot wait to explore these questions as I engage in COP for the next 2 days.

Madelyn Kelly is a senior environmental engineering student.

 

We wanted to begin COP30 not inside the venue, but by grounding ourselves in the culture, people, and nature of the region. That’s why our group travelled to Mocajuba, Pará, where we met the Amazon river dolphin, the boto, and spent time with local communities, learning about their traditions and enjoying their food. People spoke about the botos with pride, and it was easy to see why. These dolphins are incredibly intelligent and friendly with humans. One story that stayed with me was how they help fishermen by guiding them to fish-rich areas and even forming a boundary to trap the fish. Standing by the river, listening to stories from people who live with the forest and water every day, felt like the right way to enter a climate conference that tried to center local communities and their voices.
My first day at COP30 took place in the Green Zone, where Indigenous communities stood at the center, wearing traditional outfits, selling handmade products, and filling the space with languages and knowledge systems that rarely receive global attention. Almost every event was in Portuguese, created for those who feel the weight of climate change first. It felt honest. It felt necessary.
When I moved into the Blue Zone for the following days, I focused on ocean-climate nexus talks, especially those addressing marine pollution, ecosystem losses, and ocean protection. Each session reminded me how fragile the ocean is and how fast we are losing time. One moment that stayed with me came from Brazilian sailor Torben Grael, a five-time Olympic medalist, who said that when he began sailing 50 years ago, he never saw plastic in the ocean. Today, he sees microplastics everywhere. The heaviness in his voice conveyed more than any graph or dataset.
Across the sessions, the call to protect 30 percent of the world’s oceans by 2030 was repeated again and again, echoing the UN’s Global Biodiversity Framework. The newly released Global Tipping Points report was another urgent highlight, especially its warning that coral reefs have crossed a threshold that may not be reversible. Panelists highlighted the need for a Global Coral Reef Summit in 2026 to rally the world around what remains.

What moved me most at COP30 was the structure of the conversations in some of the sessions. Panels began with community voices, including Indigenous leaders and local people who rely on the land and ocean daily. They spoke about what they are seeing, what they are losing, and what they need. Government officials followed by outlining the actions they are taking now and the actions they can still pursue. It felt like real dialogue, like policy finally listening to lived experience. I also want to applaud the Brazilian government for what they modeled here. During my conversation with COP30’s Oceans Special Envoy, Marinez Scherer, she said that Brazil wanted to show the world what climate leadership looks like when biodiversity, Indigenous knowledge, and justice are treated as the foundation. She hopes Brazil’s approach inspires other nations to act with the same urgency.
Halfway through the conference, I realized something important: climate action doesn’t only happen in negotiation rooms. It begins in fishing villages, on riverbanks, and in the everyday knowledge of people whose lives are closely tied to nature.

Anagha Payyambally is a marine sciences Ph.D. candidate.