Five Key Takeaways from our COP30 Debrief

By Eman Alkobais, research assistant at BioCAM4 and undergraduate student in the Bachelor of Environmental Studies Cities, Regions Planning Program at York University

Recently, BioCAM4 and ACHIEVE invited speakers from their projects and networks to hold an online panel discussion regarding their participation in COP30. The event was moderated by Sander Chan, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University. Panelists shared their insights on important outcomes, key issues and areas of improvement of this year’s COP. Five key takeaways stood out from the discussion.

The Global Climate Agenda and Integrity

Lauri Peterson, a Senior Researcher at the University of Eastern Finland, discussed the importance of the Global Climate Agenda’s role in coordinating the structure of hundreds of voluntary initiatives, which were previously a fragmented landscape. The organization of the Action Agenda’s Six Thematic Axes and 30 Objectives brought back structure to these initiatives. However, one concern of the voluntary actions of the Global Climate Agenda are that they are currently adjacent rather than embedded within treaty outcomes. For instance, although accountability of these initiatives is being done through reporting, there has still been a “risk of greenwashing and selective reporting, the issue of nonstandardization across sectors, lack of being universally quantitative and not integrating the Global Stocktake cycles”, Peterson said. COP30’s placement of the Fossil Fuel Roadmap outside the formal regime could signal a systemic weakness, as the term ‘roadmap’ often implies voluntary initiatives rather than goal led governance, he added, noting that geopolitics and vested interests are political and economic constraints that limit ambition at the systemic level.

Challenges Faced by Local Leadership on Climate Action

Joanes Atela, Executive Director of the Africa Research Impact Network (ARIN) highlighted that the source of the challenges faced by local leadership on climate action is the global structure of climate governance. Atela noted that during COP30, the set of indicators presented to parties regarding the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) did not address adequately “the social systems of adaptation and vulnerability.” Instead, the process reflected a political dynamic, reinforcing the fact that climate governance operates at a global level. Also, with the indicators of the GGA being mostly output oriented, local voices and opportunities to drive change were limited. Atela emphasized that since vulnerable communities are mainly facing challenges within the process of adaptation rather than just the outputs, this structure causes a continuous systemic cycle where frameworks and financing aspects will continue to be performed from a top-down approach, lacking the inclusion of local voices. This gap is further expanded by the sectoral framing of global adaptation governance, rather than being multi-sectoral, “at the local level things are interlinked, in Africa one forest serves energy, health, food, biodiversity and culture, they are interlinked at that level” said Atela, noting that BioCAM4, for instance, takes a multisectoral approach that interlinks these systems and integrates local communities into adaptation strategies.

Exclusion of Indigenous Leadership

Angele Alook, Associate Professor and Director of Centre for Indigenous Knowledges and Languages (CIKL) at York University, outlined the exclusion indigenous peoples faced throughout COP30. Despite promises made earlier during the Subsidiary Body Negotiation (SBN) meetings in Bonn, including commitments to a special commission on Indigenous inclusion, dedicated badges, accommodations and meaningful opportunities for Indigenous voices to speak, “none of that actually came to fruition”. Alook mentioned the visible increased militarization at COP30 whenever Indigenous Peoples of Belém held actions outside of the COP venue and noting also that only those with existing funds were able to attend the COP. Alook highlighted the imbalance of representation in COP30: “a third of delegates were there to represent fossil fuel and corporate interests. There were more of our capitalist colonial oppressors than Indigenous peoples”. Alook also emphasized the lack of recognition of Indigenous Peoples as part of the wage economy, which contradicts the significant contributions and participation of Indigenous communities in both the working economy and their traditional livelihoods. She explained, “it is so upsetting how the powers, i.e. our colonial nation states, don’t recognize that brilliance, yet we are cited, especially in Canada, all of our climate change policies cite Indigenous knowledges, Indigenous ecological knowledge, Indigenous sciences…however we’re never fully invited to the table and our Indigenous climate solutions are never fully implemented.”

Shifting the Global Mutirao Toward Solidarity

Cristina Yumie Aoki Inoue, Associate Professor at Radboud University, explained that one of the key demands raised during COP30 was the need for a clear distinction between Brazilian local communities and Indigenous communities, as the two groups are often conflated and, as a result, feel invisible. One of the main barriers faced by Brazilian local communities during COP30 was the language barrier, which made it difficult to follow negotiations and meaningfully participate. As Inoue described, “the only thing they could really do was to listen, not to participate”. Reflecting on COP30’s theme of the Global Mutirão, Inoue also highlighted the importance of solidarity over self-interest. She explained that while international negotiations are often driven by national self-interest, the Global Mutirão represents solidarity and collective decision making. Drawing on examples from local community practices, Inoue described how decisions are made collectively, prioritizing those most in need rather than individual or political gain. In contrast, self-interest is continuing to dominate global climate negotiations, as she noted, “in thirty years we still cannot write fossil fuels in a document”.

Legitimacy and Accountability in Climate Action

Karin Bäckstrand, Professor of Political Science at Stockholm University, emphasized that while non-state and sub-state actors have significantly expanded the scale of global climate action over the past decade, the democratic foundations of this action, legitimacy, inclusion, accountability and representation, have not kept pace. She highlighted that many Indigenous peoples and civil society actors are present in climate spaces but often have “voice without vote,” resulting in symbolic participation rather than real influence. Globally, with widespread authoritarianism, less civic space and a rise of geopolitical tensions, Bäckstrand emphasized that effective climate action needs to be both accelerated and democratic. Some improvements that need to be made to build trust and legitimacy in the next decade of the Global Climate Agenda include strengthening accountability mechanisms, avoiding greenwashing and institutionalising citizen participation.

Watch the entire COP30 Debrief event: