Inside COP30: What this year’s summit looked like and the part Durham played

By Victoria Travers

COP30 concluded in far more turmoil than what had been anticipated. Even before the conference began, negotiations were predicted to be difficult, as I outlined in the previous issue of Palatinate. This year’s summit proved especially fraught: some countries temporarily withdrew from discussions, others tried to overturn the agreed texts due to feeling they were ignored, and an electrical fire in one of the buildings added to a sense of disorder that has increasingly come to characterise global climate politics.

Against this backdrop, Durham University sent a seven-member delegation. Yet given how negotiations unfolded, it is worth asking whether the delegation reflected the expertise most needed this year.

Durham’s delegation included four members from the Law school, one from Business, one from Business and Management and one from Geography. The University chose to focus primarily on human rights. Professor Elisa Morgera, from Durham Law School, played a significant advisory role, guiding governments on how human-rights principles should be incorporated into climate negotiations.

Durham has been sending experts to COP since 2021, and this year’s delegation aligns with its international standing, most recently reinforced by its QS ranking of 24th globally for sustainability. The delegates selected specialise in linking environmental challenges with legal, ethical, and economic frameworks.

The University also hosted an official side event tied to its JusTN0W initiative, an interdisciplinary programme spanning Law, Computer Science, Economics, and Biosciences. JusTN0W aims to develop globally significant research for “sustainable and just solutions for accelerated decarbonisation and lasting societal well-being.”

The event, led by Professor Petra Minnerop and Professor Laura Marsiliani, showcased Durham’s commitment to integrating justice, technology, and policy.

While these priorities were well represented, only one of the seven delegates is directly engaged in scientific research on climate change. Much of Durham’s broader climate science expertise, particularly in environmental science, energy systems, and climate modelling, was not reflected in the official delegation.

This matters because COP30 grappled with a fundamental tension: despite overwhelming scientific consensus, several major fossil-fuel-producing nations resisted any commitment to phasing out fossil fuels. Saudi Arabia reportedly threatened to derail the talks entirely if such language appeared in the final agreement. In the end, the topic was excluded.

This raises a question: did Durham’s delegation, strong in its specialism, match the nature of this year’s negotiations? Human rights are unquestionably central to climate justice, but these frameworks only gain traction when parties first agree on mitigation. Without commitment to action, rights become a secondary conversation.

Given that surpassing 1.5°C warming was formally acknowledged at COP30, something scientists have warned about for nearly two decades, stronger scientific representation might have reinforced the consequences of inaction. Researchers in climate modelling, environmental science, and risk analysis could have helped articulate how continued fossil fuel use affects ecosystems, economic stability, and global security.

Several major fossil-fuel-producing nations resisted any commitment to phasing out fossil fuels

There is also a broader communication issue. As public polarisation around science increases, so does the need for scientific communicators who can translate complex climate data into concepts policymakers cannot misinterpret. The persistent confusion between a ‘scientific theory’ and the everyday sense of the word is just one example of how communication gaps undermine negotiations.

Durham holds internationally recognised expertise across environmental science, geography, anthropology, and energy research. Yet how the University selects its delegates remains unclear. A broader inclusion of these disciplines could have strengthened both Durham’s contribution and the UK delegation’s scientific grounding, particularly at a summit where EU negotiators were reportedly weakened by financial constraints.

COP30 was a difficult summit, and its outcomes have left many questions unanswered. With fossil fuel emissions once again absent from the final agreement and negotiations repeatedly derailed, universities must reflect on how their expertise can be deployed most effectively.

Durham’s delegates represented our strengths in human rights and climate governance. But with such stark resistance to scientific realities on the negotiating floor, future COPs may require a broader balance of scientists, economists, and social researchers who can turn evidence into persuasive action.

COP31 will take place in Turkey next year. As universities continue to participate in global climate diplomacy, the challenge will not simply be showcasing institutional excellence, but assembling delegations that match the specific dynamics and demands of each year’s negotiations.

Image: Agência Brasil – Oficial via flickr