Shimukunku Manchishi is Senior Policy Officer at the African Future Policies Hub.
Brazil’s hosting of COP30 in Belém was more than symbolic. Against the backdrop of the Amazon rainforest, the summit reminded the world that climate diplomacy is inseparable from questions of justice, equity, and survival. Despite logistical nightmares, indigenous protests, and even a fire that threatened to derail the final day, the “COP of truth and implementation” delivered one breakthrough that deserves attention – trade finally entered the climate conversation.
For years, attempts to bring trade into the UN climate negotiations had failed. The issue was often dismissed as too complex, too political, or simply outside the mandate of the UNFCCC. Yet unilateral trade measures — restrictions or incentives imposed by a single country to advance climate goals — have been steadily reshaping the global economy. These measures are intentionally correct. However, they often raise questions of fairness, legality, and disproportionate impacts on poorer nations. COP30 was the moment when developing countries, tired of being sidelined, forced the issue onto the agenda.
For the first time in COP history, trade measures were explicitly mentioned in the cover decision. The outcome created three annual dialogues on trade to be held in 2026, 2027, and 2028, and reaffirmed that climate-related trade measures must not be “arbitrary” or “discriminatory.” Even more significantly, COP30 established a Forum on Trade and Climate, a permanent space where countries can debate the intersection of trade policy and climate ambition. This forum is designed to elevate the issue beyond ad hoc discussions, giving developing countries a structured platform to raise concerns about unilateral trade measures and their impacts.
The debates in Belém exposed familiar fault lines. The Global North argued that carbon pricing and trade policy are essential to prevent carbon leakage and accelerate the energy transition. They insisted that measures like border adjustments are legitimate tools to protect domestic industries while driving global decarbonization. The Global South, however, warned that unilateral trade measures risk undermining competitiveness and development prospects. African countries went further, proposing a UNFCCC notification system — akin to the WTO’s — to ensure transparency and accountability. Such a mechanism would compel countries to assess impacts and explore alternatives before implementing measures with global repercussions.
The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism became the lightning rod. Defended as part of Europe’s climate toolbox, CBAM was criticized as a unilateral measure that could penalize exporters from the Global South without offering coping mechanisms. The EU pushed back against the criticism, insisting CBAM was not unilateral but rather an extension of its domestic climate policy. Yet for many developing countries, the distinction was academic. What mattered was the impact through loss of market access, reduced competitiveness, and limited ability to adapt.
The final text was watered down, typical of COP negotiations. The dialogues and the new forum elevate the issue but stop short of binding commitments. Existing unilateral measures like CBAM will continue to roll out, leaving vulnerable economies exposed. A stronger solution would have been the African proposal for a notification system. While WTO rules already require notifications, CBAM has not been notified — underscoring the need for a parallel mechanism under the UNFCCC. Such a system would force countries to think twice before implementing measures with global repercussions.
COP30 unfolded at a time when multilateralism was under strain. Trade wars, geopolitical rivalries, and fragmented climate action have eroded trust in global institutions. That the Global South succeeded in placing unilateral trade measures on the agenda, and in establishing a forum dedicated to trade and climate, is a victory in itself. But victories at COPs are fragile. Without binding commitments, the risk is that dialogues become another exercise in “more talk, less action.”
The broader outcomes of COP30 also reflected this tension. Countries pledged to mobilize $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate action, a significant step toward bridging the finance gap. The final text reaffirmed the COP28 commitment to “transition away from fossil fuels,” though stronger language was avoided. Brazil championed a “mutirão”, a collective effort, to reinforce global cooperation at a time when multilateralism is under attack. These outcomes underscore both progress and compromise, hallmarks of climate diplomacy.
For developing countries, the challenge now is to keep pressing. The upcoming WTO Ministerial in Cameroon offers another opportunity to push for accountability and fairness. If trade is now part of the climate agenda, then climate must also become part of the trade agenda. The Forum on Trade and Climate must not become a talking shop. It should evolve into a mechanism that compels transparency, fosters dialogue, and ultimately ensures that climate ambition does not come at the expense of trade justice.
COP30 in Belém will be remembered as the summit where trade and climate finally met. The creation of a Forum on Trade and Climate is a step forward, but the real test lies ahead – ensuring that climate ambition does not come at the expense of fairness. For developing countries, the path is clear — keep pressing, in the UNFCCC, in the WTO, and beyond, until equity is more than a footnote in climate diplomacy.
The Tribune is committed to publishing a diversity of opinions. We’d like to hear from you. Send your articles to our email: opinion@merotribune.com.
Follow the Mero Tribune on Facebook and Twitter.
Advertisement
