This Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization summit in Belém do Pará, in northeastern Brazil, closes after a two‑day gathering with a 21‑page document that outlines potential consensus among the eight member states. The agenda centers on fossil fuels, and a clear split between Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Colombian president Gustavo Petro is only hinted at in a cautious statement that sparked criticism from environmental groups.
Representatives from Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Guyana, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Suriname debated the content of the text. The outcome expresses mixed feelings but presents a broader commitment: to avoid an irreversible push toward Amazonian desertification. The São Paulo daily Folha de S. Paulo reported that the phrase zero deforestation, championed mainly by Brazil and Colombia, appears in the document as an example of a national target rather than a mandate for the entire ACTO. The concession appears aimed at members with less ambitious goals or looser environmental laws, such as Bolivia and Peru.
A decision was taken to establish a scientific and technical panel for the Amazon, inspired by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a regional observatory. States will set the groundwork for enhanced police cooperation to combat criminal activity and illegal operations, including mining, mercury trafficking, and money laundering. One participant suggested a bolder objective: the creation of an environmental justice court.
The document affirms the territorial rights of indigenous communities who have long been consulted on projects affecting their lands. It also lays out cooperation to curb gender‑based violence, misogyny, and racism.
Message to EU
The ACTO stresses the need to avoid unilateral trade measures that are based on environmental requirements and standards, which can become trade barriers and disproportionately affect small producers in developing countries. Analysts interpreted this as a signal to the European Union and to wealthier nations that financial commitments toward the climate agenda for developing countries should be reinforced and linked with broader development issues. In the opening session, Lula articulated that an ecological transition should allow the region to move away from a secondary role as mere suppliers of raw materials. He described the Amazon as a strategic gateway to a new, more balanced relationship with the world, where regional resources are valued and made accessible to all. This interpretation is attributed to statements during the event and reported by multiple outlets, including Folha de S. Paulo and other observers [citation: Folha de S. Paulo; ACTO communiqués].
The Belém do Pará declaration signals ACTO’s willingness to coordinate its positions on global agendas such as COP28. While the Paris Agreement principles are acknowledged, there is no explicit mention of oil in the text. The declaration simply calls on actors involved in the life cycle of minerals and hydrocarbons to align with the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development [citation: ACTO briefings].
Environmentalists’ disappointment
Several NGOs and experts who followed the meeting in northeast Brazil voiced dissatisfaction with ACTO’s messaging to the world. The Climate Observatory’s assessment suggests the text repeats the fate of other multilateral declarations and lowers commitments. In the view of Greenpeace Brazil, the declaration falls short on several fronts and lacks clear, concrete commitments for action in the near term [citation: Greenpeace Brazil; Climate Observatory].
Commentators emphasized that eight Amazon nations did not produce a bold, unequivocal plan to end deforestation, and that oil exploration is still considered within a framework of the forest’s future. Folha de S. Paulo quoted Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of the Climate Observatory, noting that while important issues are addressed, the document does not present short‑ or medium‑term actions that civil society, business, and academia expected. Marcelo Furtado of Nature Finance suggested the meeting could alter the current trajectory if more decisive steps are added [citation: Folha de S. Paulo; Climate Observatory; Nature Finance].
Mixed opinions of Petro and Lula
The summit highlighted a divergence in views on oil between Petro and Lula. Petro, speaking from the left, questioned the durability of a political line that defends heavy investment in oil. The Petrobras leadership, including Jean Paul Prates, seemed to reflect Lula’s stance. With COP28 approaching, the role of oil in the energy transition remains a topic of intense debate, and many acknowledge that a complete phase‑out will take decades. The discussion centers on whether oil revenue can support decarbonization efforts in the medium term and how to steer such funds toward a broader, cleaner energy strategy [citation: Petrobras releases; COP28 context].