States and multinational corporations prepare for COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where the tributaries of the Amazon River meet, while grassroots organisations from five continents gathered in the Amazon region for the Fourth International Meeting of Dam and Climate Crisis Victims. As COP30 continued behind closed doors, the Peoples’ Climate Summit was held simultaneously outdoors, in open spaces and along the Amazon’s waterways.
Şermin Güven, a researcher at the Disaster Research Unit of Berlin’s Free University and Co-Spokesperson of the Ecological Movement of Kurdistan (TEV-EKO) Germany, spoke to ANF about her impressions of the Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (Movement of People Affected by Dams – MAR) Fourth International Meeting, the Peoples’ Climate Summit, and COP30 held in Belém.
What were the main differences between the Peoples’ Climate Summit and COP30?
We experienced a three-stage process in Belém: first MAR 4 International, then the Peoples’ Climate Summit, and finally COP30. These three stages made it very clear where the responses to the climate crisis come from and which worldview they are rooted in.
The MAR gathering, which began two weeks before COP, felt like a school of peoples, bringing together networks from across the world and hosting feminist, anti-colonial and ecological discussions.
We stayed in a school in Belém and organised everything collectively, from holding sessions to debates on planetary justice and daily practices of communal living. I was there on behalf of TEV-EKO. Despite limited resources, we were able to convey the Mesopotamian perspective strongly, both in feminist discussions and in analyses of the climate crisis.
Symbolic action on the Amazon River
We travelled along the Amazon River in boats together with activists, Indigenous communities and academics in the final days of MAR. As every movement did, we too raised the flag of the TEV-EKO over the river. It was a hopeful and meaningful moment that symbolised the flow of peoples’ struggles.
It was also deeply meaningful for us that this act received great interest from both local and international movements.
The solution lies with the peoples
The Peoples’ Summit, organised parallel to COP30, was a fully grassroots counter-summit. Together with tens of thousands of people, we held a long march. That march carried a clear message for both peace and ecological justice: war prevents the protection of ecology; and without protecting ecology, peace is impossible.
At the Peoples’ Summit, the climate crisis was addressed as a systemic crisis intertwined with capitalist modernity, patriarchy and colonialism. It was a remarkably vibrant space where knowledge came from communities, from women and from Indigenous peoples.
In the final days we were close to the COP30 area. COP30 represents a completely different worldview in the shaping of a climate conference: giant corporations, government delegations, enormous advertising screens and presentations on ‘green finance’… COP reduces the climate crisis to a technical issue of governance, avoiding any discussion of the system itself.
While COP attempts to manage the crisis, the peoples seek to question and transform the system that produces it, demanding a stance that moves closer to real solutions and genuine practice.
What common ground emerged between the Kurdish movement, Indigenous peoples of Latin America, feminist groups and eco-socialist organisations at this alternative summit?
At the Peoples’ Summit, we built very strong alliances with many fronts of struggle. Three areas stood out most clearly:
First, the understanding of land/territory. In our perspective, as well as for the Indigenous peoples of the Amazon, the Andes and Abya Yala, land is not property; it is life itself, memory itself, identity itself. This shared understanding formed a fundamental basis for rejecting the colonial logic of borders and ‘development.’
Second, the eco-feminist approach. The recognition that violence against women and violence against nature share the same roots was expressed with the same clarity both within women’s organisations and within the lines of the TEV-EKO. Women’s consciousness of freedom is seen as the carrier of the ecosystem, and all peoples affirmed this.
Third, social ecology and systemic transformation. Our approach of social ecology, which redefines the relationship between society and nature, creates a very strong common ground with eco-socialist organisations and local communities. Instead of state-centred solutions, the idea of ‘communal self-organisation’ was the primary point of convergence.
These shared positions showed that, in essence, peoples carry the same questions, the same forms of resistance and the same search for alternatives within themselves.
How do you think the ecological destruction in Kurdish regions (forest fires, dams, mining, and the environmental impacts of military operations) can be linked to the themes discussed at COP30?
The ecological destruction in Northern Kurdistan (Bakur) is a micro-example that embodies all the structural realities COP30 avoids addressing. And similar micro-examples appear across other continents as well.
First, the impact of militarisation on ecosystems: war systematically destroys nature through forest burnings, landmine remnants, military bases and military roads. COP leaves this reality entirely outside its scope.
Second, the destructive nature of dams and the discourse of ‘green energy.’ Dams are presented by COP as if they are solutions, yet in Kurdish regions they empty Kurdish villages, disrupt water regimes and erase both the historical-cultural fabric and the ecosystem.
Third, mining and green colonialism. The minerals required for the so-called ‘green transition’ are extracted from the living spaces of communities. This returns to peripheral peoples as ecological, economic and cultural costs.
And finally, social and political-ecological disasters. From the perspective of disaster research, the environmental destruction in Kurdish regions is not merely a climate issue; it is a multi-layered regime of disaster production fed by military, political and colonial practices.
How visible and inclusive is the place of ecological struggle within the Kurdish movement? And to what extent does the international climate movement hear the ecological problems of the Kurdish region?
In the Kurdish movement, ecology stands as centrally as democracy and women’s freedom. In fact, it is better understood when we see these as a symbiotic trio that cannot be separated from one another. The foundational role women play in the ecological struggle against domination, historical violence, genocide and ecocide brings the movement closer to an eco-feminist line.
And this road map, shaped precisely in the fractures created by capitalism’s poly-crises, is much clearer and more practice-oriented than many others.
However, we must acknowledge certain disadvantages in terms of visibility: state repression and criminalisation, conditions of war, and the tendency of the international climate movement to interpret the Kurdish region not as an ecological space but as a ‘political conflict zone.’
Still, what I witnessed in Belém is this: the perspective of the TEV-EKO, especially the line of social ecology and women’s freedom, is strongly embraced and actively sought to be understood by women’s and Indigenous organisations in Latin America. This shows that international visibility has significant room to grow.
How visible was TEV-EKO during the protests against COP30? What kinds of contacts were made with international actors?
TEV-EKO’s visibility was ensured throughout the MAR process, at the Peoples’ Summit and also during the marches. We preferred to be out in the streets, in forums and collective spaces with the people rather than in COP’s official blue zone. In this context, presenting our social ecology perspective in panels, sharing ecological experiences from Rojava to Mesopotamia, joining marches with white flags alongside other groups as part of MAR and the TEV-EKO, and symbolic actions such as the boat procession on the Amazon River all contributed to the beginning of a visible presence for TEV-EKO among academics, Indigenous peoples and activists.
Of course, we also established contact with many international activist groups and organisations. We had important exchanges, especially with Indigenous women’s organisations from the Amazon, Afro-Amazônia communities, defenders of water, land and forests from Africa, eco-feminist movements in Latin America, and individual women activists. Many of them were already aware of the ongoing ecocide in Kurdistan.
For example, Bertha Zúniga Cáceres, a Honduran social activist of Lenca origin and the daughter of Berta Cáceres, who was murdered in 2016, was both knowledgeable and committed to understanding the Kurdish women’s perspective and ecological perspective.
We also spoke with eco-socialist academic networks; for instance, we had meaningful discussions with a representative of the Simón Bolívar Institute for Peace from Venezuela. A participant from Palestinian environmental and freedom collectives was also present, and our exchange with them was productive.
These contacts will form a very significant basis for transnational solidarity ahead of the next COP, which will be held in Turkey. Because the ecocide taking place is not confined to one region; the global ecosystem we must protect is one. It cannot be separated by continents or borders. Our approach must grow in parallel with this understanding.
What similarities or differences did you observe between the Kurdish ecological struggle and the other local/Indigenous struggles you encountered at the summit (such as Amazon Indigenous communities, Palestinian activists, or community movements in Africa)?
All of them face colonial state and corporate violence, and in all of them land is a living space and an identity. Militarisation targets ecosystems in similar ways; and women stand at the forefront of the struggle everywhere. Resistance develops in community-based, horizontal and solidaristic forms.
On the other hand, the ecological struggle in Kurdistan unfolds in a divided geography and as part of a people’s unique political and identity struggle. This develops both as a choice and as a necessity. The line of social ecology establishes an integrated link between ecology, women’s freedom and democracy. While some Indigenous peoples in other regions may negotiate with states within this framework, state repression in Kurdistan narrows this space far more and treats the development of ecological struggle as a political vulnerability.
Finally, which examples, networks or initiatives were particularly encouraging for transnational solidarity?
First eco-feminist alliances emerged. The convergence of women from the Amazon, the Andes, Africa, Palestine and Kurdistan created a profoundly powerful sense of hope. The genocide against the Palestinian people was constantly protested in the marches, through slogans and flags. It was absolutely clear that the future of ecological struggle is being carried by women.
Another encouraging example was the networks of Indigenous and community-based ecology movements. Exchanges of knowledge among seed-preservation initiatives, water collectives and forest-monitoring communities created what could truly be called a ‘peoples’ ecology.’
Then there were the strategic connections formed in preparation for the upcoming COP that will be held in Turkey. This COP could be a turning point for the TEV-EKO. It has created a major opportunity to make the ecological destruction in Kurdistan visible, to build ties with ecological movements in Turkey and across the world, and perhaps to weave a new anti-colonial ecological front.
The most important thing Belém showed us was this: states cannot solve the climate crisis, but when peoples connect with one another, solutions grow on their own.
I observed a paradox in Belém: COP30 was held at the very place where the Amazon Rivers meet, yes. But COP30 did not conclude the International Climate Crisis Conference with any concrete reflection, self-criticism or knowledge that represented the peoples, neither the peoples of the Amazon nor those coming from other continents. In other words, COP30 was in the Amazon, but it was not with the Amazon peoples.
Parallel climate conferences like this can be monitored and used to remind states of their responsibilities. But what truly matters is that local and civil society movements take more confident steps in producing real solutions.