For the first time in more than a decade, Latin America is hosting a United Nations climate conference: COP30, taking place in the Amazon city of Belém in Brazil. The conference comes at a complex global juncture – one marked by geopolitical conflicts and strains on multilateralism, but also with expectations of Global South countries potentially playing a more influential role in shaping the climate agenda.
Panama is one of the countries seeking to drive this change. With a new climate action plan and an innovative “Nature Pledge” that integrates climate, biodiversity, desertification, plastics and oceans, the country has positioned itself as an active player in the negotiations. From its role at the helm of the Forum of Environment Ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean, which it will chair until 2027, it is also attempting to articulate a stronger and more coherent regional voice.
Juan Carlos Monterrey is Panama’s special representative for climate change. The 33-year-old was named by Time Magazine as one of the most influential people working on climate in 2025. In an interview with Dialogue Earth at COP30 in Belém, Monterrey highlighted the importance of reaching a more unified Latin American position in climate negotiations. He also called for reform of the UN climate system and shared his expectations for the COP. The interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Dialogue Earth: Latin America is hosting the COP for the first time in more than a decade. Is this a turning point for the region’s visibility and influence in climate negotiations?
Juan Carlos Monterrey: COP30 is of great importance for the region and for the world. It marks 10 years since the Paris Agreement, and President Lula da Silva of Brazil has called it “the COP of truth”. So, let’s review some truths.
First, we have failed in the goal of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous impacts on life on Earth. After 30 years of negotiations, emissions continue to rise. A change of course is urgently needed.
Second, while coastal communities are drowning due to rising sea levels, governments are drowning in bureaucracy: reports, documents and speeches that few people read.
Third, although there is not enough money for all the demands for climate finance, the existing funds are difficult to access. There are multiple mechanisms, each with their own standards and processes. We want to send a clear signal: climate finance funds must have a unified enforcement authority.
What kind of regional alliances or joint positions are emerging among Latin American and Caribbean countries at this COP?
There is always agreement on issues such as adaptation, resilience, loss and damage, financing and waste management. But in the negotiating rooms, we become fragmented. Panama assumed the presidency of the Forum of Environment Ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean this year, and one of our objectives is to get the region to bring at least one common issue to the table and defend it to the end, as Africa does with its unified position. We may not achieve this at COP30, but we are pushing in that direction.
Latin America and the Caribbean are the “middle class” of the world: highly vulnerable countries, but many of them no longer being on the lists for cooperation [such as the least-developed countries group, which are entitled to certain concessions, aid and assistance]. If there is a time to unite, it is now, when the global economic context makes us seem less in need of support, just when we need it most.
Multilateralism is going through a tense period, with conflicts and rivalries, as well as governments that are more sceptical about climate action. How do you negotiate climate change in an increasingly fragmented world?
It is a difficult time. The decision-making framework at climate conferences is based on consensus. We believe that consensus limits ambition; we cannot expect a mechanism designed decades ago to respond to current needs. We need profound reforms: of the reports that countries must submit, of access to funding, and of the decision-making system itself.
The Brazilian presidency has convened a circle of former COP presidents to discuss reforms to the process. What do you think the future of climate negotiations should look like?
We need to reform the decision-making process, otherwise we will not move forward. The reforms must include the entire UN system: today there is not enough money, and there is duplication of functions and excessive bureaucracy.
The current political climate shows there is consensus on the need for greater efficiency and reform of the multilateral system, both among those of us who still believe in it and those who question it. It is time to rethink the global system.
We believe that consensus limits ambition; we cannot expect a mechanism designed decades ago to respond to current needs. We need profound reform
Panama’s new climate plan presents a qualitatively greater ambition, covering more sectors and aiming for carbon neutrality by 2035. What’s next for its implementation?
We aim to reduce our emissions by 11% [compared to a business-as-usual scenario]; today we are carbon negative, capturing more emissions than we generate. But we need additional support: until now, we have done so with national funds, providing a service to the world.
We also presented the Nature Pledge at the COP, the first global political instrument that integrates climate, biodiversity, desertification, plastics and oceans. It summarises in a single document what was previously across five.
In addition, we are going to propose at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) that the UN promote a common reporting framework for the conventions on biodiversity, desertification and climate. We want to unify them; it will take time, but we are starting with a bottom-up approach, with countries taking the lead. There is no reason to treat these issues separately.
The COP should finalise the framework and indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), an area that has historically been neglected. How important is it to achieve this?
Having the GGA and its indicators is essential, and it must be one of the achievements of this COP. For decades, it was said that measuring adaptation was difficult, but today, science, technology and artificial intelligence offer sufficient tools.
Some indicators are still under debate, and their definition will be negotiated in the coming weeks. Panama already has national indicators, which have been useful in this process. But measuring progress is of little use if there is no adequate funding. In Glasgow at COP26, a promise was made to double adaptation funds; now we must define how much more is needed. Developing countries are discussing this under the G77 coalition.
Therole of fossil fuels remains a source of conflict, even for Brazil. How is this issue being addressed at the COP and in Latin America?
I recently visited Saudi Arabia for negotiations on desertification, and that helped me understand their point of view. If you live in a country where you have to bring drinking water from thousands of kilometres away, and your only income is oil, you are going to protect your oil economy. We need more opportunities for dialogue to understand these realities; I cannot ask Brazil to stop producing oil while it continues to have high levels of poverty.
Without clear signs that we are all moving forward together, no country will take unilateral decisions, because the global financial system does not incentivise them.
Fossil fuels cause this crisis and exacerbate it. We need to phase them out, but with fairness and cooperation.
What gives you hope, and what concerns you about the direction of global climate action?
I am encouraged by innovations in the private sector and the determination of young people. They are the heart of the movement, and Panama’s delegation is one of the youngest in the world. I started 10 years ago, at the age of 23, and today we have negotiators as young as 17 in the field of biodiversity. We want to continue opening up spaces.
I am concerned about the influence of oil companies and extractive industries. In some places, we are seeing setbacks, but I understand that this is like a pendulum: it goes up and down. The important thing is that when it goes up, it goes up strongly.
This post was first published on Dialogue Earth and republished here under a Creative Commons BY NC ND License.
