Our Quo Vadis COP? Future Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings under the UNFCCC – Settled and Fit for Purpose (March 2021) was premised on the fact that the purpose of the multilateral climate negotiations had shifted from negotiating multilateral treaties to implementing them. This shift of focus, our Report argued, needed to be reflected in a shift in the role and functioning of the involved multilateral bodies, in particular the Conference of the Parties (COP) and its Subsidiary Bodies (SBs). Did it? 

Our assessment in this 2024 Update of the 2021 Report is that the current arrangements, to be blunt, are not fit for the current purpose. We argue that it is time to make urgent and important decisions to guide the reforms needed as early as possible. Not doing so would have major negative consequences for the multilateral climate regime, exactly at a time when we most need a well-working system the most.

The challenges and dangers of a system that has clearly veered off course

There has been an extraordinary growth in the size and complexity of the annual sessions of the governing bodies of the existing multilateral climate treaties – generally referred to as “COPs” – not only in terms of participant numbers (see figure), but in the number of co-located events and associated costs.
The 2024 Update focuses on three major issues arising from such ‘mega-COPs’: 

• Equity concerns – the most climate vulnerable states can no longer afford to preside over or host a COP and showcase their plight; indeed, even larger countries with higher capacities shy away from hosting mega-COPs, drastically reducing the inclusiveness of the multilateral process.
• Negotiations benefit from serendipitous encounters between participants, but the size of mega-COPs prevent this from happening easily.
• Last, but not least, mega-COPs pose a serious reputational risk for the multilateral climate change negotiations. Not only is there the risk of the mega spectacle leading to an inflation of the general public’s expectations on outcomes, but they may even pose an obstacle to appreciate the successes of more focused outcomes such as the Global Stocktake, enhanced transparency reports, and new Nationally Determined Contributions. The hype may lead to expect outcomes which are not meant to be delivered by negotiations in implementation mode, leading to the perception of these events as overblown multilateral jamborees/junkets.

Our Recommendations

Our Update identifies a triad of distinct events happening at current COPs: Negotiations (sessions of the governing bodies and SBs), summit meetings, and trade expositions. All are, no doubt, important but they do not have to happen at the same time in the same place. The fact that they currently are co-located at take place concurrently was not a matter of design but happened mainly for the sake of organisational convenience.

 Decentralisation. This is why we propose to spatio-temporally disaggregate the mega-COP triad as follows:

• COPs: To be held (purely as sessions of the governing bodies and SBs) in Bonn at the World Conference Center (where capacity is 5,000 participants), following the model of the mid-year SB sessions (without a ministerial high-level segment).
• COP Presidency (Climate) Summits: To be held (if possible, only in specific years when political leadership is required) in the COP Presidency’s region (possibly in conjunction with the Expos) or at the UN in Geneva. For NDC submission years, the Summit could be held nine months before the COP, when NDCs are due.
• COP Presidency (Climate) Expos: To take place in the UN Region holding the rotating COP Presidency (but not necessarily in the country of the Presidency). 

Partial Repurposing of the Governing/Subsidiary Bodies. Regarding the Governing/Subsidiary Bodies, we furthermore propose that their purpose be modified to suit implementation better. While negotiating of texts with a view to produce consensus documents (such as a ‘Decision’ of the relevant body) may still from time to time be required, it stands to reason that there may be other activities which these bodies could engage in to facilitate an ambitious implementation of the existing treaties. 

How to do it? (COP 30)

The first thing to remember is that the proposed decentralisation of the event triad currently co-located at mega-COPs does not require a multilateral decision. It is in the mandate of COP Presidencies and, therefore, nothing stands in the way of this happening if the Brazilian Presidency decides that this is what it would like to do: to start, for a historic transformation of the COPs, while at the same time addressing the challenge of hosting a COP in Belém. Thus, one could have the following decentralisation:

• COP30 Presidency NDC Summit in Belem: Held nine months before the COP when NDCs are due, the event would provide incentives for leaders to arrive at the Summit with ambitious pledges. Few would want to be the laggards.
• COP 30 Presidency Climate Expo in Rio: Leveraging Rio’s infrastructure for hosting large events, this event would encompass pavilions, exhibition stands, the Global Climate Action Hub, and other information-outreach events (including an expanded roster of side events).
• COP 30 (governing bodies session) in Bonn (or Brasilia/Belem): For negotiators and some civil society representatives (i.e., those directly engaged in the negotiations), this would enable time and attention to the mandates for COP30, including revising the adaptation communication guidance and any follow-up work related to the new collective quantified goal on climate finance and the 2023 Global Stocktake.

This would increase engagement and economic benefits across Brazil. Media could better follow the key stories at various sites. Negotiators could focus on their tasks, while others could showcase their climate action to a more dedicated audience. It also must be emphasized that attendance at COP Presidency events that are not co-located with the negotiations can be capped by the Presidencies in question (which is not possible if pink badges are involved). This means that if, say, the Summit and the negotiations need to be held in the same place (Belém), then they must be temporally separated so pink badges will not grant admission to the Summit.

For a pre-publication copy of the 2024 Update contact director@oxfordclimatepolicy.org.