Civil society reacted with outrage and immediate mobilisation. For artisanal fishing collectives, environmental groups and Indigenous networks, the authorisation — in addition to being technically risky in an area of high ecological sensitivity — represents an unacceptable contradiction: at the same time the country took up climate discourse and promoted debates on sustainable solutions at COP30, it allowed fossil fuel exploration to advance in critical areas.

The authorisation was also seen as an attempt to normalise decisions that threaten the environmental sovereignty of affected communities. Civil society organisations warned that unless this exploratory licence is suspended, the damage will be irreversible. The Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, which issued the authorisation, and the National Indigenous Peoples Foundation both recognised the impacts it would have on traditional communities. Ignoring this meant turning a blind eye to the law and science.

This led to coordination between civil society organisations, legal bodies and social movements and. The Arayara Institute filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Pará requesting the suspension of oil drilling and exploration in block 59 of the Foz do Amazonas basin and the annulment of the licence. In the lawsuit, the Arayara Institute cited several reasons against the authorisation: lack of consultation with Indigenous peoples in the region, flaws in planning in case of spills and, particularly, omission of an assessment of the impact of carbon dioxide emissions from oil exploration.

This decision by the Brazilian government has cast deep doubts on the country’s climate and environmental future and demonstrated the government’s true commitment to the oil industry, to the detriment of decarbonisation and environmental protection. The siren song of the fossil fuel lobby and political interests has trumped climate science and reason. The cost of this decision will be paid by present and future generations.

Indigenous and traditional communities reacted with deep concern and mobilisation. The Amazon is home to 2.7 million Indigenous people, 14,000 km² of mangroves and thousands of kilometres of reef system, all threatened by drilling in coral areas. Main concerns included direct impacts on local livelihoods and production chains such as fishing, increased vulnerability to environmental disasters such as spills, and cultural and intergenerational impacts on food practices, knowledge transmission and rituals.

Indigenous leaders sought to articulate collective positions and demand immediate protection measures: suspension of licences, independent risk assessment and contingency plans that integrate traditional knowledge. During COP30, the Arayara Institute brought these concerns to the Amazon Climate Hub, holding 112 plenary sessions with over 700 panellists. The debates and technical and scientific presentations addressed adaptation, agriculture and food, animals, bioeconomy, climate justice, climate solutions, decarbonisation, low-carbon economies, new technologies, oceans and territories, among other topics. Academia, civil society organisations, communities, environmentalists, international organisations, journalists, researchers, scientists and traditional peoples from all continents, representing 68 countries, participated.

Overall, 14,768 people passed through this space, and alliances were formed. The organisers broadcast the panels publicly and made them available on social media and for download with translations in several languages. The Arayara Institute will make documentaries, executive summaries and proceedings of each session available over the coming months, ensuring accessibility and democratisation of information.

The authorisation was the result of a confluence of various pressures: energy security and geopolitical interests, lobbying by the oil and gas sector and others who saw the expansion as an investment opportunity and internal pressures for government positions and political influence. Corporate and partisan interests sought to strengthen the hydrocarbon industry in the name of employment and regional development, without any clear assessment of socio-environmental risks.

Internationally, offshore discoveries in Guyana and Suriname increased pressure to take advantage of the exploration potential on the Brazilian Amazon coast, while private and state-owned companies pushed for licences, their timing aligned with political cycles. Technicians from the environmental agency recommended caution, which suggests the final decision had political dimensions that disregarded scientific and technical criteria.

Civil society went to COP30 with a dual role: as a watchdog, monitoring public statements and agreements, documenting inconsistencies and questioning problematic authorisations, and as a proponent, putting solutions on the table such as climate finance proposals that prioritise bioeconomy projects that generate local income without destroying forests or seas, just transition models, loss and damage mechanisms with the direct participation of affected communities and territorial justice.

Action was coordinated on three fronts: the creation of safe spaces for Indigenous leaders to speak directly to the international public, political advocacy with delegations and public mobilisation to broaden the democratic debate. At the Amazon Climate Hub, we highlighted grassroots initiatives that are being implemented.

COP30 offered mixed results. It brought important advances, but failed to fully translate rhetoric into measurable commitments on the scale needed.

In terms of climate justice, the creation of the Belém Action Mechanism for just transition represents a significant advance: for the first time, equity in climate transition has a formal space in the United Nations system. However, loss and damage mechanisms still lack adequate resources and participatory governance processes have not been fully guaranteed.

In terms of financing, COP30 approved a target to triple financing to adapt to climate change by 2035. The Baku to Belém Roadmap established the need to mobilise US$1.3 trillion annually by 2035. However, these commitments are not binding and the deadline is considered late in view of worsening climate impacts.

The Belém Mission for 1.5°C and Global Implementation Accelerator were created to support countries in strengthening their climate commitments. The launch of the Tropical Forests Forever Mechanism introduced long-term payments for conservation. There was also progress on the Action Agenda, with over 480 initiatives presenting 117 Plans to Accelerate Solutions.

Emissions reduction was the most disappointing point. Although 88 countries supported a roadmap for a transition away from fossil fuels, the final text did not include language on this. There were no formal commitments to phase out fossil fuels or reform subsidies. Opposition from major oil producers prevented progress. Brazil launched parallel initiatives on forests and fossil fuel transition which, although not negotiated decisions, may influence future discussions.

COP30 also highlighted growing geopolitical polarisation. The absence of leaders from China, India and the USA — the three largest emitters — signalled the political difficulties. The conference was marked by a fire that interrupted negotiations and by blockades by Indigenous groups demanding stronger protections for the Amazon.

The expected legacy — adequate resources for grassroots solutions, expanded protection of territories and instruments to ensure the Amazon and its peoples are not sacrificed — was only partly realised.