Bad COP... Good COP?

I have long held reservations about the Conference of Parties (COP) as an institution. What began as a well-intentioned forum for advancing climate action has, with each new iteration, seemed to morph into a larger, more politically congested spectacle. A platform for grand commitments that often unravel in the years between summits.

Even with this sceptical predisposition, I was taken aback when the COP appeared not just to shoot itself in the foot but to undermine its own mission entirely. Over the last week, reports have surfaced that thousands of acres of Amazonian rainforest had been cleared to make way for a new road, deemed ‘necessary infrastructure’ to ease congestion in Belém, the host city for COP30 later this year.

Aerial shot of Belém's "Avenida Liberdade" under construction (Source: BBC)

I suspect my initial reaction was shared by many: a mix of exasperation and disbelief. How could this have been overlooked? The risk of environmental damage from hosting an event of this scale in the Amazon was surely predictable.

Anyone familiar with climate science knows that road construction is one of the primary catalysts for deforestation, particularly in the Amazon, where it triggers the “fishbone effect.” This pattern of destruction occurs as new roads provide access for loggers, miners, and agricultural expansion, with deforestation radiating outward from the main thoroughfare. Data suggests that 95% of Amazonian deforestation occurs within 5.5 km of a road.

The "fishbone effect" seen in Rondônia, Brazil (Source: Google Earth)

Moreover, the notion that building roads will ease congestion is a well-documented fallacy. The phenomenon of “induced demand” shows that expanding road capacity often leads to more traffic, negating any intended benefits[1].

The irony is painful: a global climate summit, designed to protect the planet, is directly contributing to one of the key drivers of environmental destruction.

An undeniable failure of planning by the UNFCCC and COP organisers, right?

Perhaps not.

The decision to host COP30 in Belém was not accidental. Following his 2022 election victory, President Lula da Silva made a direct appeal at COP27, advocating for Brazil, and specifically Belém, to host the summit in the Amazon. His argument? That bringing world leaders to the heart of the rainforest would force them to confront its plight firsthand. It seems to be working. Rainforest is making way for new infrastructure developments the world over, yet those projects don't seem to be making the headlines.

Belém is not a remote rainforest outpost, it is a city of 2.5 million people, many of whom face severe economic deprivation. Just 2% of its sewage is treated, leading to widespread pollution in its waterways. Crime rates are high, and underdeveloped infrastructure limits economic opportunity.

The city of Belém in the state of Para, and the path of the new highway (Source: Google Earth)

Does this justify the destruction of protected rainforest? No. But it does highlight the difficult balancing act that Brazil, along with many other resource-rich nations, faces: protecting natural resources while pursuing economic development.

This contradiction, where environmental damage is the unintended consequence of climate action, reveals a deeper issue: the absence of a financial framework that makes conservation a viable economic choice. If the communities living alongside vital carbon-sequestering resources were adequately compensated for their role as environmental stewards, they might not be forced into unsustainable development choices.

A fully functioning carbon market could help bridge this gap, creating financial incentives that make conservation a competitive alternative to deforestation. Without such mechanisms in place, we will continue witnessing paradoxes where the very events meant to save the planet end up contributing to its destruction.

As profoundly disappointing as it is to see the destruction of a rainforest in order to make way for a new highway, perhaps this is less an oversight as to the unintended consequences of Belèm's hosting COP30, and more an intentional strategy by President da Silva and the UNFCCC, designed to highlight the type of nuanced environmental trade-offs that are occurring the world over on a daily basis.

The question we should be asking isn’t just whether COP30 is the problem, but whether we are doing enough to fix the underlying economic realities that drive these environmental trade-offs in the first place.

[1] See DfT-commissioned report: "Latest Evidence on Induced Travel Demand: An Evidence Review" conducted by WSP and RAND Europe: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c0e5848e5274a0bf3cbe124/latest-evidence-on-induced-travel-demand-an-evidence-review.pdf