Young Brazilians are being priced out of Brazil's COP30

Júlia Gouveia is a youth climate advocate, and Climate Change and Emergencies Specialist at Plan International Brazil.

Later this year, COP30 will bring the world's climate negotiators to Belém in November, in the heart of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. It's a rare opportunity to centre the Amazon and its people in global climate discussions.

COPs are meant to be spaces where civil society can influence decisions and bring forward the realities of those most affected by climate crisis. Yet each year, fewer of us are able to be in the room.

Every year, my organisation sends more than 10 delegates to COP, with representatives from five continents and across sectors — from youth and gender advocates to climate finance and humanitarian specialists.

This year, however, we're likely sending just four, with two of us being based in Brazil to reduce costs.

We are not alone. Colleagues in many other organisations are looking at how to justify the cost and time of attending an increasingly complex and high-level event, while budgets and funding for civil society organisations are shrinking.

It is not just about logistics or budget. It's about balancing the limited resources we have against competing demands: continuing programming, supporting youth movements, making sure that national governments are committed to climate negotiations, and trying to stay active in spaces like COP.

When we reduce our presence, it is not only numbers that drop — it's diversity. We risk losing perspectives from smaller NGOs, youth-led groups, and organisations rooted in climate-vulnerable regions.

In past years, we've had delegates join from the Pacific islands and now their sole option is to join online. These are precisely the actors who make climate diplomacy more grounded and accountable.

COPs are not designed for broad participation. This is not an issue unique to COP30.

Multilateral spaces are, by design, limited in access. Accreditation processes are complex, agendas are dense and pre-set, and high-level spaces are typically reserved for governments and well-resourced institutions.

The result is that climate negotiations are often dominated by those with access, capacity, and influence — while those living through the climate crisis are left on the sidelines.

This imbalance limits what these spaces can deliver. Without diverse civil society actors like youth-led groups tracking discussions, sharing insight, and connecting issues like gender, youth, and adaptation, are missed.

That's why Brazil's recent call for a global 'mutirão' — a 'joint effort' to accelerate implementation and climate ambition — is so significant.

Framed by the COP30 presidency as a turning point, this vision invites governments, businesses, and communities to act together to uphold the goals of the Paris Agreement and tackle the climate crisis.

A true mutirão, however, must include all hands. This means designing spaces where smaller civil society groups and youth-led movements are not just present but positioned to lead, influence, and shape decisions.

The shrinking space for civil society also affects what happens between COPs. Relationships with negotiators and allies are harder to maintain without in-person presence.

National movements lose opportunities to align with global campaigns. And fewer voices are heard shaping narratives on climate finance, resilience, and justice.

The number of accredited observer organisations has grown steadily, reaching 3,956 at COP29 — more than double a decade ago.

Yet this headline growth hides an uneven reality. Many smaller NGOs and youth-led groups from climate-vulnerable regions report sending fewer delegates than in past years due to travel costs, complex logistics, and competing demands at home.

COP30 in the Amazon is being positioned as a turning point — a COP for inclusion, equity, and ambition. That promise must be matched with action. Inclusion must go beyond symbolism, especially for youth-led groups.

Ensuring meaningful participation in global climate processes requires a shift in how these spaces are designed and resourced. That includes simplifying accreditation, providing coordination support for grassroots and regional actors, and recognising civil society not just as observers, but as partners.

But participation also depends on financing. If we want civil society — especially those from lower-income countries, youth-led groups, and community-based organisations — to be at the table, then financial mechanisms must be adapted.

This could mean establishing dedicated participation funds for global summits like COP, integrating civil society access into broader climate finance frameworks, or requiring donor-backed programmes to allocate resources for engagement.

Organisations like Plan International will continue to send delegates where we can. I will be in Belém, alongside a few colleagues, doing our best to cover as much as possible.

As COP30 approaches, we need to ask not just who will be in Belém — but whose voices will shape the path forward.