Build a big tent to keep COPs relevant
In an era of chaos and fragmentation we need a big tent approach to climate diplomacy: COPs are the world as it is.
By Anne-Sophie Cerisola
The past months have shed light on two divergent trends. In national politics, a consolidation of authoritarian power in many countries that had been spared from it so far. In many cases, this new authoritarianism is founded on the dominance of and the return to fossil fuel energy.
In the international space, a breakdown of the so-called “world order” based on international law and multilateral institutions designed after WW2 to “end the scourge of war” and to facilitate the expansion of liberal democracy coupled with free-market economy and free trade then dominant in “the West.”
What does it mean for actors engaged in climate change multilateralism?
First, it is important to recall that countries now have a solid and science-based normative and cooperative framework to rely on and most of them have presented their third climate plans (NDCs) and are now engaged in the implementation of their commitments and the complex social and economic transformation they entail.
Crisis response
In the midst of the ongoing challenges to international climate cooperation, one possible response is to hunker down, focus on the implementation of climate commitments at home, continue to engage with allies and like-minded partners while keeping the engagement in multilateral climate and climate-related fora to a minimum to avoid any unnecessary confrontation.
For countries with the necessary economic and financial capabilities, this could be considered as a viable and efficient option, and would allow them to further develop “first movers” and other “coalitions of the doers” now in vogue in the climate space. The risk, however, is that such a posture would probably contribute to a further fragmentation: of countries into clubs, groups, quartets, initiatives); and also of the nascent global technical, financial and regulatory architecture needed to accelerate the global transition toward a low carbon and resilient development.
Another response would aim at combining all of the above, from domestic implementation to engagements with partners old and new - parties, private sector and civil society - with an active participation in the multilateral climate space. This would mean fully embracing this space, even if it means meeting with “unlike-minded” countries and groups, as the only effective and credible way to discuss and implement policies, experiences and solutions in a non-adversarial way.
In the midst of the ever more fragmenting international space, there is still such a yearly meeting open to everyone - public and private, governments and non-governments, indigenous peoples, civil society, scientists, media - the conference of parties of the climate change conventions: the Conference of Parties (COP) of the Climate Change Convention, the only such global “big tent” space we have left.
Welcome in
The “big tent” can be the space in which multilateral cooperation on climate action advances, despite strong rhetoric by a few leaders suggesting the opposite. It can turn into the venue of showcasing progress, collaborating on implementation and addressing common hurdles (lack of finance, policies, capacities) jointly – as governments, business, investors, sub-national actors and civil society. The tasks at hand are significant. Supporting each other and creating confidence about the feasibility is thus essential, and rebuilds trust.
The evolution of COPs in the past 10 years lends itself to such a project of affirmation of “bottom-up multilateralism”. Since COP20 in Lima (2014), COPs have seen an expansion of the so-called “Action Agenda”, the space devoted to showcasing to negotiators and governments the concrete social and economic benefits of the decarbonization and climate-proofing of the “real economy”.
The “Global Climate Action Agenda” has since become the pillar of the Climate Convention that mobilizes voluntary climate action from civil society, businesses, investors, cities, states, and countries to intensify emission reductions, climate adaptation, and the transition to sustainable economies, as set out in the Paris Agreement. It is about putting agreements into practice and has attracted an ever growing number of various actors to COPs, sometimes competing for attention and impact with the negotiation space.
The Action Agenda has at times suffered from its lack of political direction or accountability against the goals of the Paris Agreement. The proliferation of “initiatives” launched by governments, COP presidencies and multi-stakeholders since 2014 begged for some cleaning-up and reorganization.
Building on previous efforts, the Brazilian presidency’s decision to fully embrace the Action Agenda as a major pillar of its COP30 and therefore pivot the Conference toward implementation was correct and, as it turns out, timely event it did not receive the needed political attention.
Even more decisive was their move to bridge the negotiation and climate action spaces and define six thematic axes, all designed to fill gaps and deliver against the Global Stocktake (GST) outcomes agreed at COP28 in Dubai. In theory, countries can now turn to this menu of solutions provided for each of the big sectors of the economy to get help or ideas from a broad community in support of their national climate and development policies.
How would a “big tent” work?
Climate conferences are currently organized in two zones, the “official” negotiation zone (the “blue zone”) where only Parties can make decisions and the climate action zone (the “green zone”) where all participants are welcome to present their projects and initiatives, under either national or non-governmental organizations pavilions.
Traditionally, climate or environment ministers attend COPs mostly to weigh in on the final negotiations; they also participate in sectoral side events showcasing their countries’ climate action but such events are rarely showcased as key priorities; leaders fly in and out after having given speeches, economy and finance ministers mostly ignore COPs as not relevant.
This order of priorities must be flipped around. Ideally, the next COP presidency in charge of climate action, Türkiye, will organize the green zone into six thematic sections; set up dialogues with ministers and stakeholders to test solutions presented in the climate action space; and, finally, showcase the results in an outcome document that will have the same visibility as negotiated decisions.
Transition time
Take energy transition (axis one), for example. A broad range of multi-stakeholder initiatives have been strengthened and enabled to work on these key issues. These initiatives include, to take only the Europe-based ones, Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, the Global Clean Power Alliance, Powering Past Coal Alliance or the EU Commission’s own Global Forum on Energy Transition.
Recent meetings, including at COP30, have shown that there is a genuine interest from many developing countries to work together with these actors as long as it is on their own terms, for example as part of a country platform (which would assist in mobilizing the investments from domestic and international financial actors).
Likewise, many government partners, from the EU to the Republic of Korea can deliver tangible results on partnerships they support or seek to initiate on electrification, grids, storage, sustainable fuels, bioenergy, or critical energy transition minerals. All these activities could be reported on and accounted for in an official COP document which would be used during the 2028 Global Stocktake to track global progress of implementation.
Staying attractive, relevant
Still, how can you make these COPs attractive for the so-called “real players” (corporate and financial actors) and not just for the “usual suspects”? It is obviously not enough to just proclaim that “COPs are the only global “big tent” left”. COPs are criticized, sometimes rightly so, for becoming jointless and aimless climate fairs which themselves produce a lot of carbon.
COPs have also been criticized for letting actors of the fossil fuel industry in when non governmental organizations and civil society actors are pushed aside and sometimes censored. And the Spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank have been called more impactful. These criticisms are all legitimate.
Of course it is easier and nicer, especially now, to go to meetings where everyone is convinced about the goals, share the same values and ways of working. Such meetings feel energetic and productive, they help counter the doubts and hesitations one could legitimately have.
We need the London or Bangkok climate weeks, and the phase-out-fossil-fuel treaty conferences, or the adaptation networks workshops. But they are not enough. The response to attacks and challenges is not and cannot be the “bluesky-isation” of the climate space.
We have to stand our ground, and our ground is the multilateral space where everyone is allowed and where the consensus rule gives an equal voice to each country, regardless of its political or economical status.
Enter one, enter all
So making COPs attractive falls on all of us. We have to make the conscious decision to attend COPs, to actively participate and to ensure all “players” attend. There is no other real incentive to make the COP attractive.
The COP presidencies and the UNFCCC secretariat have the legal obligation to take every step to ensure that the powerful and the powerless have the same rights and equal space at COP.
Quite frankly, on paper it is not really great to meet in drafty conference halls where the food is bad and expensive, the seats are few and hard and the meetings often (always) run late. No free canapés and clubby camaraderie there.
A COP is frustrating, a COP is messy, but it is still the only place where the world as it is can meet, and provoke change for the many, and not just the few.
Anne-Sophie Cerisola is a distinguished fellow at the Brussels-based Strategic Perspectives think tank. Previously she was Director of the Climate Action Team in the Executive Office of the United Nations Secretary-General and Special Advisor to the French Climate Ambassador ahead of COP21.