What was the AgriZone at COP30, and why was it accused of greenwashing?

Protesters at COP30 called out the AgriZone pavilion, organised by the Brazilian agricultural agency Embrapa, for being sponsored by companies linked to industrial agriculture, pesticides, and deforestation. It is the first time for a separate zone sponsored by the agriculture industry to be present at the UN climate talks.

Located less than 2 km from the Blue Zone, the climate summit’s negotiation venue in Belém, the AgriZone is advertised as a “major showcase of technologies, science, and international cooperation focused on sustainable agriculture.

But Elodie Guillon, head of Civil Society Engagement at the NGO World Animal Protection, told The Conference Corner that the companies present solutions that, “instead of tackling the root cause of emissions, just push forward technofixes that are usually costly and often scientifically unproven.” She added that their goal is “to maintain the status quo and allow their highly carbon-intensive agribusiness model to keep going.”

An FOI request filed by Unearthed revealed that a draft contract promised sponsors “visibility” and “image gain” from their association with companies committed to addressing climate change. 

Bayer, one of the “diamond” sponsors of the pavilion, allegedly paid at least R$1mn (£142,000). The multinational currently faces a complaint in the OECD by groups in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia, who accuse it of pushing an agricultural model in South America that leads to deforestation, biodiversity loss and disputes with Indigenous peoples. 

In a formal response published in July 2024, Bayer rejected the accusations and stated that it “could not identify any connection between the adverse impacts and Bayer’s business.”

Senar, the educational branch of the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock (CNA), which paid R$2.5 million (£360,000) for a “master sponsorship”. The CNA is a major agribusiness lobbying group in Brazil, having recently backed a so-called “devastation bill”, a set of legal changes criticised by climate organisations for allegedly weakening environmental licensing requirements. It has also pushed to overturn the Amazon Soy Moratorium, which blocks the sale of deforestation-linked soya, and lobbied against EU legislation that bans the import of products from deforested land. 

In 2024, agriculture, farming, and the associated deforestation were responsible for 72% of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil, according to Brazil’s Climate Observatory. Worldwide, it is estimated that between a quarter and a third of emissions are caused by food production, based on 2019 data. 

This scenario has heightened the criticism over the fact that more than 300 lobbyists for industrial agriculture and farming attended COP30, one in four as part of an official country delegation, according to an investigation by DeSmog and The Guardian. 

Embrapa responded to The Conference Corner with an official statement, reading that “the claim that AgriZone was built to showcase agribusiness solutions at COP30 is mistaken.”

The agency added that, following a public call for proposals to feature in the AgriZone pavilion, candidates were selected based on the criteria of “themes aligned with COP30’s goals” and “involvement in initiatives to advance sustainability in production systems.” 

The statement also advanced that “almost all the proposals received were approved.” 

Elodie Guillon suspects “their sustainability criteria are probably really poor.”

Activists have also expressed concern over the degree of influence that agribusiness seems to have over the Brazilian authorities organising the climate summit. 

Recently, Embrapa has pushed for Brazil to adopt GWP* (Global Warming Potential Star), a revised metric for assessing methane’s climate impact that factors in how the greenhouse gas breaks down quickly in the atmosphere. This method has been rejected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the grounds that it would allow companies to increase their pollution while claiming to mitigate the problem. 

“Since the first day, there has been an invitation for all the negotiators to visit the AgriZone to see the ‘real solution’,” Guillon said. “It is a threat to multilateralism,” she argued, “discussion on food and agriculture shouldn't happen outside of the negotiation room.”

The two brothers who own JBS, a Brazilian multinational company and the world's largest meat processing company, were part of the Brazilian official VIP delegation, granting them access to the restricted Blue Zone of COP30. Guillon, who was present at the summit, describes it as “shocking”. “We, as observers, don't have access, while they really have access to write the climate rules.”

When asked if there is a way for these big agricultural and farming companies to contribute to sustainable practices, Guillon said that only “systemic change … throughout the supply chain” can achieve true sustainable food production. 

“These agribusinesses are heavily subsidised, so their products are artificially cheap,” Guillon explained. “We need to start redirecting finance towards small producers and medium enterprises that adopt agroecology” – an umbrella term for sustainable farming practices that work with nature. 

In essence, the World Animal Protection and other activist groups argue that a reduction of the share of these companies in the global market chain is the way forward.

------

By staff writer Marta Abreu.

Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, president of COP30, visiting the AgriZone. Photo by Rafa Pereira/COP30, provided by COP30 official photo bank.