What worked, what didn’t, and what must change
As the world gathered in Belém for COP30, land and territory emerged as central themes in the climate agenda. Carlos Magno, from the ILC member organisation SABIA – Centro de Desenvolvimento Agroecológico Sabiá, took part in both the official negotiations and civil society spaces.
In this interview, he reflects on how Indigenous, Quilombola, and family farming communities were represented, what inspired and disappointed him, and what must change to turn global climate commitments into concrete territorial gains.
How were land rights — especially for Indigenous Peoples, Quilombola communities, and family farmers — addressed or overlooked in the COP30 negotiations?
During this COP, I felt something quite different from previous editions. Beyond the formal negotiations, the process gained a new dimension in Brazil because of the strength of civil society and, especially, the People’s Summit, which brought together 40,000 participants from every continent. Even though it sits outside the legal framework of the COP negotiations, it delivered a powerful message: Indigenous peoples, Quilombola communities, and family farmers are the real custodians of nature, and their territorial rights and voices must be fully protected and heard.
Inside the official conference, there was also progress: for the first time, family farming was recognized as a key constituency, with a special envoy dedicated to the agenda. This finally brings visibility to millions of farmers who have long been marginalized in climate discussions.
But there were setbacks. The biggest one was the absence of Quilombola communities in the final negotiation text. There was real expectation that their rights would be explicitly included, and rejecting this language was a missed opportunity.
Overall, though, hosting the COP in the Amazon — and bringing together peoples from all over the world — made it clear that there is no climate action without territory, and no territory without securing the rights of those who care for it every day.
What was the most encouraging moment for you at COP30, and what was the biggest disappointment related to land issues?
The most encouraging moment for me was the Unified Peoples’ March for Climate, which brought 70,000 people to the streets of Belém. People from every continent walking together for climate justice. It was truly historic — not only for this COP in Brazil but for the entire global process.
The most disappointing aspect, however, was the explicit prejudice against the Amazon as the host of the COP. From the beginning, many voices — some subtle, others not — argued that the event should have been held in a “bigger” or “more comfortable” city. It was racism and xenophobia disguised as logistical concerns.
What is the most impactful step the ILC can take to ensure climate finance reaches communities and organisations on the ground before the next COP?
The most impactful step the ILC can take is to strengthen regional and territorial organisations so they can directly access climate finance. This means helping build a funding ecosystem with secure, locally appropriate governance that ensures resources from governments, philanthropy, and the private sector actually reach communities.
A concrete path is the creation of territorial funds. The ILC can lead training processes, facilitate governance debates, and support the design of this new funding architecture. These mechanisms would help isolated territories — which face enormous barriers — finally reach the financial resources they need.
Large global mechanisms like the Loss and Damage Fund have enormous difficulty reaching the grassroots. That is why we need new, territorial pathways that deliver funding where climate action truly happens.
After COP30, what should be the top national priority to turn global climate commitments into real land-tenure gains for the communities you work with?
The number one national priority should be to strengthen the organisations already working across the country. Climate is the issue of the moment — present in every debate, policy, and funding opportunity — but many organisations still do not fully see how their territorial work connects to climate.
The ILC should get closer to these national organisations, building stronger relationships, joint strategies, and helping translate the climate agenda into their daily practice. When organisations understand this connection, they become better equipped to access funding, structure projects, and strengthen their grassroots impact.
Despite the challenges of working globally with a small team, deepening ties with national members is strategic and transformative.
