Paul Watkinson is a former chief climate negotiator for France who now works independently on ways to improve the multilateral climate process and strengthen climate action.
As COP30 in Belém approaches, the focus must shift from process to impact. We need a credible response to counter attacks on multilateralism and to boost action on reducing emissions, adaptation, loss and damage, and finance.
Whilst the traditional agendas will be heavy and results on items like adaptation indicators, just transition, finance and global stocktake follow-up will be vital, even together they do not constitute the “big ticket” item Belém requires for success.
Some have suggested that an additional political statement – often called a “cover decision” – would be a way to try and bridge the substantial gaps in climate ambition and action the world is facing.
However, while there is certainly a need to maximise the impact of Belém, I am not convinced a cover decision is most effective vehicle. It is time for the COP to move beyond fighting over decision wording and truly pivot towards supporting and facilitating implementation.
What are the problems with a cover decision? Firstly, most COPs function fine without one, and a good host-nation presidency – this year, Brazil – can land and communicate an outcome regardless of whether results are in a single decision or a series.
A cover decision does not necessarily provide a better overview of results across multiple work streams, nor does it make it easier to find the balance between different priorities. Indeed, throwing one in the mix can even complicate the management of the final days if it overlaps with ongoing substantive negotiations on parallel decisions (a concern in Sharm El Sheikh in 2023).
“Christmas tree” of issues
Secondly, whilst the initial justification for Glasgow in 2021 was the valid need to address mitigation ambition (and a similar argument can be made for Belém), proposing a cover decision inevitably opened the door to inserting a host of other topics.
Almost inevitably, the cover decision encourages a widening of the debate and quickly risks turning into an infamous “Christmas tree.” Yes, that can be a way to ensure balance across topics, but there is a cost to pay as issues multiply, as seen by looking at the 17 sections of the Sharm El Sheikh cover decision.
Thirdly, cover decisions often launch poorly prepared mandates. There were good reasons for the mitigation work programme from Glasgow and the just transition work programme from Sharm El Sheikh, but there was little discussion of their scope or aims before the decisions were adopted, and parties have been struggling ever since to find agreement on how to implement them.
COP30 president hints Brazil may be open to a cover decision in Belém
We should be looking at how to rationalise and improve the mandates we have, ensuring that we set up processes that make a difference, not clog up the process further.
Above all, what would a cover decision at COP30 concretely achieve? Would another invitation to revise NDCs, like the request from Glasgow, be effective? Using political capital to get decision wording in Belém would be little more than feel-good posturing if it does not also deliver real world impacts.
A Belém Implementation Plan
What should we do instead? Pivot to an implementation forum, as I suggested a few months’ ago.
The Action Agenda – which mobilises voluntary climate action across economies and societies – can provide just the vehicle we need to do this, with the great advantage that it does not require consensus outcomes. However, it does require major improvements to be effective.
I am heartened by the fact that the Brazilian presidency is already moving in the same direction, with the reorganisation of the Action Agenda as set out in the fourth letter from the COP president and the work by the high-level champions.
To be acceptable, an implementation forum must correct the central weakness of the Action Agenda to date – its tendency to multiply announcements rather than ensure credible follow-up and real implementation. That must change.
Global South campaigners question inclusivity of COP30 as some stay home
Pulling this together, the final days of the COP should not be the scene of yet more tense negotiation of yet another cover decision that will not be make much impact, but should instead be the moment for the presidency to present a Belém Implementation Plan.
This plan would provide clarity on how all work mobilised will move forward, specifying who, what, and when, with clear results over the next year or two. It would say where and when an implementation forum would convene in 2026 (options might include during climate weeks or in New York) to oversee progress. That process would be led by the COP30 presidency, the champions and, hopefully by then, the incoming presidency of COP31.
Maximising real-world action
Such a plan would be inclusive, bringing in not just parties, but also other international organisations, financial institutions, business, sub-national governments and civil society. Crucially, it could still capture key political messages – on mitigation ambition, adaptation, finance, loss and damage – but as results to be delivered through action, not mere rhetoric.
Changing the UNFCCC’s habit of negotiating decisions is going to be hard. I can see that, despite my arguments, many may remain of the view that the outcome should include some sort of decision text. If that can be kept short, and focused, why not? But there would still be a need for an implementation forum alongside to give it credibility.
The leaders’ summit just before the opening of COP30 may also provide further opportunities to capture high-level calls for strengthened action. Perhaps the outcome will be some combination of options.
The point is that working on the basis that a cover decision would be sufficient and the test of success in Belém is not enough since it would carry a high risk of disappointment down the road.
Belém must aim higher – and COP30 can be the moment when the world shifts its focus to ensure stronger credibility and, most importantly, starts to maximise its impact in the real world.
