The COP30 climate change conference concluded – Researchers assess the outcomes

We asked three University of Helsinki researchers what they thought of the outcome of the negotiations and what effects the agreement now reached will have in their field of study. 

Maria Brockhaus:No agreement on the deforestation roadmap - even though the COP was held in Amazon

What is your initial reaction to the results of the conference, Professor of International Forest Policy Maria Brockhaus?

Overall, the COP results are not enough in light of the challenges through climate change the world is facing, and with a 1.5 temperature goal moving becoming less and less reachable. There  was no reference to the need to exit fossil fuels, let alone a roadmap. And, since there was not roadmap for deforestation either, even though the COP was in the Amazon – it seems the two agenda items were coupled in the negotiations, which made progress on the roadmap to halt and reverse deforestation difficult.

However, it was exiting to see (finally) again civil society and especially indigenous people taking the floor, engaging, and holding states accountable for their failure to mitigate climate change and to enable adaptation – and secondly, it was hopeful to see that in incredibly turbulent geopolitical times, with dividing and devise agendas regarding climate policies within countries and regions.

What effects might the results achieved have in the future from the perspective of your own field of research?

First of all, there is still a future, and 195 countries agreeing in the end made that possible, even though what was agreed is too weak with regards to what is needed.  Many items including the deforestation roadmap have been made part of the work program at COP31 in Turkey. The just transition agenda is an important avenue for future action and it was great to see some progress with this workplan. And, from the perspective of someone working on forests and climate mitigation and adaptation, the loud voice of people and nature in Belem was hopefully inspirational for future negotiations, and for future climate action.

Markus Kröger: Climate change conference was a failure of consensus politics

What is your initial reaction to the results of the conference, Professor of Global Development Studies Markus Kröger?

As a whole, the outcome of the negotiations was disappointing, as stricter emissions requirements, clear roadmaps for reductions and agreement on halting deforestation all failed. The consensus principle of decision-making is problematic in the context of the COP negotiations, where lobbyists and representatives of oil companies and other polluting sectors have direct access to negotiation tables through governments without an incentive to reduce emissions and their immediate profits. There should also be a way to make decisions based on majority. Alternatively, consideration should be given to a more binding alternative international order.

Of course, there were also positive aspects to the conference, since as many as 500 different simultaneous sessions were being held in Belém, which delightfully brought together in particular Brazilian popular movements, NGOs and governmental actors to plan concrete measures. For example, restoration was supported in a variety of ways. Maybe one could say that issues other than the most difficult ones, such as relating to emissions and the consequent reduction of profits, progressed best in Belém. Likewise, Indigenous peoples gained more visibility than in earlier conferences even though they were excluded from the important tables.

What effects might the results achieved have in the future from the perspective of your own field of research?

At least the approval of the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) for which more than €5 billion has already been pledged, will cause a need for research. The facility has been criticised in many ways as deficient, and for a good reason. It increases the risk of government debt , does not measure forest cover accurately enough, gives only a fraction of the profit directly to forest-dwelling populations, and depends on whether the return on investments can even be achieved on the financial markets. 

Reetta Toivanen: The perspectives of vulnerable communities and Indigenous peoples were inadequately highlighted

What is your initial reaction to the results of the conference, Professor of Sustainability Science Reetta Toivanen?

My initial reaction was twofold. It was positive to see how various operators – from the business sector and ministries to NGOs and researchers – gathered around the same table to look for solutions to the climate crisis. I personally addressed several panels and coordinated one, and it was great to see how diverse discussions were had. However, the outcomes of negotiations were often disappointing: decisions were often compromises that as yet fail to meet the scale of the crisis. The perspectives of vulnerable communities and Indigenous peoples in particular were not sufficiently highlighted.

What effects might the results achieved have in the future from the perspective of your own field of research?

From the perspective of humanities-led sustainability science, the outcomes highlight the need to further investigate the societal and cultural effects of climate action, in particular, in vulnerable communities and regions inhabited by Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, they confirm the message that the green transition must be carried out fairly – not in a way that due to green transition mining and wind power projects are imposed on communities without them having a genuine say in the matter. In fact, in the future it will be important to monitor how participation, transparency and the rights of communities will be concretely strengthened in the next COP processes.