The 2026 ecbi New Delhi Seminar, held on 3 March at the India International Centre, examined how the global climate regime can remain effective as it shifts from negotiation to implementation under the UNFCCC.
Tackling the “Mega-COP” Problem
ecbi Director Benito Müller highlighted how the rapid expansion of COP meetings into large, multi-purpose “mega-COPs” has created three key problems: reduced inclusiveness (as vulnerable countries struggle to host or participate), weakened negotiation effectiveness (due to fragmented interactions), and growing reputational risks (from mismatched expectations and outcomes). His proposed solution is to “disaggregate the COP mela” by separating negotiations, political summits, and climate expos into distinct events held at different times and locations. This decentralised model would ease logistical burdens, improve negotiation dynamics, and better align expectations with the implementation-focused phase of the climate regime.
Shifting from Negotiation to Implementation
Presenting a paper by Stefan Ruchti and Paul Watkinson, Anju Sharma identified the core problem as an overreliance on negotiations within an increasingly complex UNFCCC system, which limits real-world progress on mitigation, adaptation, finance, and loss and damage. The proposed solution is to “repurpose climate sessions” by streamlining agendas, reducing unnecessary negotiation items, and adopting alternative modalities focused on implementation—such as knowledge-sharing dialogues and technical exchanges. The paper also calls for stronger participation of implementation experts, better use of intersessional processes, and closer integration of science and policy to make the system more effective and action oriented.
Reducing Congestion and Clarifying Roles
Ovais Sarmad pointed to the growing complexity, cost, and fragmentation of the UNFCCC process, where negotiations are crowded with parallel activities such as pavilions, side events, and climate action platforms. He warned that this “Frankenstein” system risks becoming unmanageable and losing credibility. His solution is to separate core functions: retain negotiations under the UNFCCC; shift climate action platforms to Climate Weeks and external forums; and focus COPs more on implementation review and progress tracking. He also emphasised the need for political leadership—particularly from the COP presidency “troika”—to drive meaningful reform.
Climate Justice and Multilateralism
Shailly Kedia, Director and Senior Fellow, The Energy and Resources Institute, presented on climate justice and multilateralism. She pointed to the strong corelation between the Human Development Index (HDI) and energy consumption, and between energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. She said the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement identify climate change as a global issue, but do not include a mandate for managing the global commons. She proposed a “2000-Watt Society” conceptual framework, where energy consumption and the HDI are used as a framework to determine climate justice. She also presented a framework for multilateral reforms, based on scope, membership, decision-making, functions, and form.
Broad Support for Reform, but Political Constraints Remain
Participants agreed on the need to streamline processes, separate negotiations from peripheral activities, and explore more continuous or decentralised models of engagement. However, they stressed that procedural fixes alone are insufficient: entrenched political divisions, lack of trust, and defensive negotiating positions continue to limit progress. While imperfect, the COP system was recognised as vital in maintaining global momentum on climate action.
Overall, the seminar underscored that making the climate regime fit for purpose will require both institutional redesign and renewed political will to align global processes with the urgent demands of implementation.
