If the shepherds sit with the wolves, who will protect the flock?
SUNIL DOWARKASING
COP30 – A Defining Battle For a Global Fossil Fuel Phase-Out
The 30th Climate conference took place at the Hangar Convention Centre in Belém, Brazil, from 10 to 21 November 2025, bringing together world leaders, negotiators, scientists, and civil society groups for what became one of the most closely watched climate summits in recent years. Among the numerous agenda items, the most divisive and politically charged debate centred on whether the parties could agree on a clear, time-bound plan or even a formal roadmap for the global phase-out of fossil fuels. This issue underscored deep tensions between high-emitting nations, rapidly developing economies, and climate-vulnerable states, turning it into the defining battleground of the negotiations.
Is the UN compromised not to say “sold out” to fossil fuel lobbyists ?
In recent years, UN climate conferences (COPs) have seen record numbers of fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance, often exceeding the size of the delegations of entire countries. These lobbyists are granted access under the same accreditation systems as environmental NGOs or indigenous groups, allowing them to sit in negotiations, attend closed-door side events, and directly engage with policymakers. When climate talks turn into lobbyists’ lounges, you have to wonder: what’s the point of the COPs anymore.This raises legitimate concerns about conflicts of interest:
How can countries negotiate a fossil-free future while surrounded by representatives of companies whose profits depend on maintaining the status quo?
A climate summit run by polluters cannot clean the air.
Has the system become so compromised that it is effectively beholden to the fossil fuel industry?
The reality is more nuanced than simple corruption, but the concerns are real. The UN climate system is structurally vulnerable: it relies on consensus decision-making, meaning that even a single powerful country can block ambitious action. Many of these countries are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, giving them leverage to slow or weaken climate commitments. At the same time, fossil fuel lobbyists enjoy unprecedented access to negotiations, side events, and national delegations, allowing them to influence the framing of policies, language, and timelines. Corporate sponsorship and embedded advisers further blur the lines between private profit and public interest. The result is a system that can appear “sold out” not because the UN is corrupt, but because its rules and structures inadvertently empower actors whose economic interests are directly opposed to rapid decarbonisation. In practice, this means vulnerable nations, Indigenous groups, and climate science advocates must fight to have their voices heard against the persistent influence of the fossil fuel industry
When Polluters Sit at the Table of COPs
According to the coalition of 450 NGOs – Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO)- Across the last several climate summits, the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists has grown into one of the most visible and controversial features of the UN climate process. At COP26 in Glasgow, watchdog groups counted around 503 lobbyists linked to oil, gas, and coal interests — already more than the largest national delegation. This number rose to roughly 636 at COP27 and then exploded at COP28 in Dubai, where an estimated 2,456 fossil-fuel lobbyists gained access, the highest ever recorded. Although the figure dropped to about 1,773 lobbyists at COP29 in Baku, including a strong bloc of carbon-capture advocates, it remained far above early-COP levels. At COP30 in Belém, over 1,600 fossil-fuel representatives were accredited, confirming a persistent and systemic pattern. Between COP26 and COP30, more than 5,300 fossil fuel lobbyists attended COPs, representing 859 corporate and industry organisations. This growing presence has fuelled widespread concern that the negotiation process risks being shaped or slowed by actors whose core business interests run counter to the rapid phase-out of fossil fuels demanded by science and vulnerable countries.
When COPs host the polluters, what purpose do they serve?
COP30’s Mandate: Action, Accountability, and Ambition
What COP30 was meant to deliver?
COP30’s agenda in Belém was shaped by mounting pressure to accelerate global climate action and respond to the widening gap between commitments and reality. The summit was expected to deliver a concrete roadmap for the phase-out of fossil fuels, building on the unresolved debates from Dubai. Countries were also anticipated to strengthen their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for 2035, outline clearer pathways for adaptation finance, and operationalise the next phase of the Loss and Damage Fund. Biodiversity protection, forest conservation—especially in the Amazon—and the rights of Indigenous peoples featured prominently due to Brazil’s role as host. Above all, COP30 was expected to restore trust in the multilateral process by turning years of promises into measurable, enforceable action.
Inside COP30
COP30 failed to deliver on several of the most urgent climate priorities, largely because political interests outweighed scientific imperatives.
Despite intense pressure from vulnerable countries and civil society, the conference once again fell short of agreeing on a concrete, time-bound plan to phase out fossil fuels, the single most critical step for limiting global warming. Negotiators also failed to secure meaningful commitments on climate finance, with wealthy nations resisting clearer obligations to scale up funding for adaptation, loss and damage, and just energy transitions. Likewise, expectations for stronger rules on carbon markets, methane reduction, and protection of biodiversity-rich ecosystems were diluted or postponed due to geopolitical tensions and the growing influence of fossil fuel-aligned delegations.
Ultimately, COP30 exposed a widening gap between what science demands and what politics allows, revealing a negotiation process increasingly paralysed by vested interests and an absence of collective political courage.
When the COP Fails, the World Fractures: What Comes Next?
With COP30 failing to deliver the breakthroughs the world urgently needed, climate diplomacy now enters a period of heightened uncertainty — but also intensified pressure.
The lack of agreement on a fossil fuel phase-out means that the responsibility shifts back to individual countries, regional alliances, and non-state actors to accelerate their own transitions. We are likely to see a rise in mini-lateral climate coalitions — smaller groups of ambitious nations banding together to push forward issues such as renewable energy deployment, methane reduction, and ocean protection. At the same time, climate-vulnerable countries will intensify their calls for climate justice, using platforms like the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and the Loss and Damage Fund to demand accountability from major emitters.
However, the failure at COP30 also deepens the risk of widening global warming trajectories. Without global coordination, emissions could rise unevenly, fossil fuel investments may continue unchecked, and adaptation gaps will widen, especially for small island states and least-developed countries. This moment may therefore mark a shift from relying on the COP process as the main driver of climate progress to a more fragmented and contested landscape — one where leadership will come from cities, regions, courts, and grassroots movements as much as from national governments
What This Means for Mauritius ?
For Mauritius, the failure of COP30 to produce a strong roadmap for fossil fuel phase-out and climate finance is deeply consequential. As a Small Island Developing State (SIDS), Mauritius depends on a functioning multilateral system to secure adaptation support, ocean protection commitments, and fair access to climate finance. With the global process stalling, the country must now strengthen its own climate diplomacy, working more aggressively through SIDS alliances, the African Group, and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) to push for accountability from major emitters. [ This is why deponing and bringing our support to the Vanuatu case was of utmost importance ]. At home, Mauritius must accelerate resilience measures, coastal protection, renewable energy expansion, marine ecosystem restoration, and disaster preparedness because international timelines can no longer be relied upon. COP30’s shortcomings signal a reality Mauritius can no longer ignore: survival will depend on proactive leadership, not promises, and on transforming its ocean and climate vulnerabilities into a foundation for long-term sustainability and geopolitical relevance
The Mauritius Paradox: Crying Climate Emergency While Courting Oil
Mauritius’ position at COP30 raises serious questions about coherence, credibility, and climate leadership. On the one hand, the country consistently presents itself as one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable small island states – a narrative that is absolutely true given its exposure to sea-level rise, coral bleaching, storms, and coastal erosion. Yet, on the other hand, the former government enacted an Offshore Petroleum Act and openly pursued the prospect of extracting hydrocarbons from the shared continental shelf. By neither repealing the legislation nor publicly clarifying its stance, the current government appears to tacitly endorse the same trajectory
In the context of COP30- a summit where the central debate revolved around phasing out fossil fuels, this contradiction becomes even more striking. While demanding stronger global action, Mauritius appears to be keeping one foot in the fossil economy, adopting a “wait-and-see” posture rather than taking a principled stand. This risks being perceived internationally as double standards, especially when other island nations such as Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and the Maldives are calling loudly for a full global fossil fuel phase-out and banning exploration in their own waters.
From a geopolitical standpoint, Mauritius may justify this by arguing it needs to assess all economic options before closing the door on potential revenue streams. But from a climate-justice perspective, the very discourse Mauritius champions at global platforms, the move weakens the country’s moral authority.
Two Faces of Mauritius- time to get down the fence.
Sitting on the Fence: Mauritius’ Contradictory Climate Posture.
At a time when COP30 exposed divisions between fossil fuel interests and climate-vulnerable countries, Mauritius’ ambiguous posture sends the wrong signal:
you cannot claim extreme vulnerability while simultaneously stepping into the fossil fuel business.
