Climate, culture and community: what three researchers hope for at COP29
Three Max Planck scientists discuss COP29’s challenges, from the Loss and Damage Fund to human rights and the health risks of climate change.
As the 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) unfolds in Baku, a multidisciplinary team from different Max Planck Institutes will be present—not directly negotiating, but serving as critical observers. Economic sociologist Hannah Pool, anthropologist Bayar Dashpurev, and social-demographer Risto Conte Keivabu each contribute a distinct perspective to the UN debate. Pool focuses on climate-induced human mobility, Dashpurev examines the intersections of resource extraction and climate impacts with human rights, and Conte Keivabu assesses the health risks posed by increasingly frequent extreme weather events. In the interview, they share their hopes for COP29, emphasizing critical topics like Loss and Damage, green finance, and the urgent need for inclusive, science-driven climate policies. Together, they offer a scientific perspective on the issues at stake in Baku.
Last year, the focus was primarily on the topic of Loss and Damage, specifically on who will bear the costs of climate-related economic damages and losses. Will COP29 continue this discussion? From your perspective, what will this year’s conference focus on, especially in relation to your areas of research?
Pool: Last year, based on decades-long scientific research, along with the advocacy by civil society organizations, the Loss and Damage Fund was finally agreed upon. Now, it is crucial to make sure that this fund actually reaches the groups, communities, and countries most affected by the consequences of climate change —and ideally, without all the bureaucratic hurdles. As a researcher focusing on climate induced human mobility, I hope that COP29 considers how non-economic losses and damages – for example the impact of climate change on community bonds – can be included in the discussions, as these so far remain largely unaddressed. Considering them really shows the scope of what is lost due to climate change, since they represent the consequences for people trying to adapt to shifting conditions in their environment.
Dashpurev: I think Loss and Damage will always be central to COP discussions, and this year it’s tied closely to green finance. There are also other crucial issues at play—like human rights, resource extraction, and environmental activism—that are coming to the forefront.
For me, COP29 is a chance to examine how human rights, climate impacts, and mining intersect. I’m working closely with representatives of civil society groups, the mining industries, and political representatives of countries whose economies depend on resource extraction yet are among the most affected by climate change. This collaboration is not just enriching my research but also helping to bring attention to the voices and perspectives of those living with these challenges.
Conte Keivabu: Yes, COP29 will continue to advance the discussion on Loss and Damage, with an increasing emphasis on health consequences. Extreme weather events like heatwaves, floods, and wildfires present serious health risks, resulting in increased death rates, a surge in vector-borne diseases, respiratory problems, and mental health challenges. These health effects contribute to both economic and non-economic losses, disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable communities. Increasing costs for healthcare and loss of productivity, as well as loss of life and diminished well-being, are only a few examples.
I think it’s critical that the discussions around Loss and Damage integrate health measures, prioritizing support for those most at risk, like the elderly, people with pre-existing conditions, and poor communities. Recognizing these health vulnerabilities within climate funding could lead to a much more comprehensive response.
The outcomes of the COP are not legally binding – is it still worthwhile for the conference to take place? Or, put differently: What can the COP achieve from your perspective?
Pool: It is important to maintain global discussions on climate change, but they risk losing credibility, if they don’t lead to concrete action. In the case of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), we need clear commitments. This includes determining who will contribute and how these funds are distributed.
Dashpurev: Not all legally binding rules guarantee results—it often comes down to genuine commitment. Take Mongolia’s ‘A Billion Tree’ initiative: since 2021, we’ve planted 84 million trees to help with climate adaptation and mitigation. It might seem small on a global scale, but efforts like these have the power to inspire action regionally, even influencing larger CO2 emitters like China and Russia. Instead of doubting COP’s impact, we should keep exploring different ways to address our shared challenges.
Conte Keivabu: Even though COP decisions aren’t legally binding, the conference plays a big role in setting global goals for climate change mitigation and adaptation. It’s an annual reminder of the urgency of climate action and keeps these issues in the global spotlight. There’s definitely room to make COP more impactful, but it’s still a vital platform. I’d say we’re far better off with COP than without it—it’s one of the few forums where the world gathers to tackle climate change head-on.
As scientists, you don’t sit at the negotiation table or make decisions at the COP; instead, you mainly observe. Why is it still important for you to be there?
Pool: As observers, we’re documenting and monitoring the event, hopefully adding a layer of accountability. We also bring our own research expertise to the table. On a broader level, we are examining how governments negotiate the role of scientific facts about climate. As an economic sociologist, I focus on how agreements are reached, how collective decision-making unfolds, and how scientific evidence becomes integrated into the decision-making process, which is why observing this process at COP is really valuable to me and my research.
The presence of scientists as observers is important because it ensures access of the academic community to how science is incorporated into negotiations. It also means that the outcomes will be evaluated scientifically, contributing to accountability.
Dashpurev: Observing is a way of engaging, too. Being at COP isn’t just about watching the discussions unfold—it’s about experiencing the discourse firsthand. This back-and-forth is crucial to global climate talks, and it’s why we need inclusive voices from all sides to truly reflect the global scale of the crisis.
I believe we can’t address climate change without welcoming different perspectives. At COP29, the idea of ‘solidarity in the green transition’ is a major theme, and that solidarity is essential. Only when we’re in the room can we help bring the conversation to a level that resonates with the millions impacted by climate change every day.
Conte Keivabu: For me, being at COP29 is all about understanding the core issues that are top of mind for policymakers. There’s often a gap between what researchers are focused on and what policymakers need right now, and being at COP helps bridge that gap.
By observing and engaging in these discussions, I can pinpoint the main challenges and research gaps. That way, I can align my work with what’s actually needed, ensuring it’s useful for policy decisions and can help shape effective solutions.
And lastly: If you could wish for an outcome, what would it look like?
Pool: In my research, I have witnessed the consequences of climate change, whether through interviews conducted with people living in Ahrtal and Erftstadt, or by learning from countries like Fiji and Kenya, which are developing adaptation strategies.
I hope the issue of habitability becomes more firmly integrated into climate negotiations. Our understanding of climate-induced human mobility—whether in the form of migration, displacement, plant relocation, or immobility— is often sidelined or only addressed when crises hit. I’d love to see a more proactive, science-driven approach that centers human rights, as well as protective approaches to addressing climate induced human mobility in a dignified way.
Dashpurev: Like many, I want clear, concrete outcomes from COP29. But beyond just results, I hope the conference highlights the tough process behind reaching consensus, especially when participants come from diverse backgrounds with different social and political perspectives. It’s a challenging, democratic process, and that effort deserves recognition. For me, it’s not just about a final list of outcomes but also about recognizing the difficult process it takes to reach agreements.
Conte Keivabu: My work focuses on how climate change impacts health, particularly through air pollution and extreme heat, which affect the most vulnerable populations. Policies to reduce air pollution, for example, have the biggest impact on those with health conditions or lower socioeconomic status. My wish for COP29 is to see strong commitments to cut greenhouse gases and pollutants from major sources like coal plants. These reductions could slow climate change while also saving lives and reducing health inequalities worldwide.
