As COP31 approaches, an uncomfortable reality is becoming harder to ignore—the world is entering a period of overshoot of the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature goal. The magnitude and duration of overshoot will depend on how quickly emissions fall in the years ahead.
Negotiations on the future of the Sharm el-Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation work programme (MWP) will therefore be particularly significant. It will be essential that COP31 send a clear signal on the sustained importance of mitigation in the global climate response.
Established to urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation in this critical decade in a manner that compliments the global stocktake, the MWP is currently scheduled to conclude in 2026 unless Parties agree to extend it in November.
The politics surrounding the MWP are complicated. Since the MWP was established, Parties have struggled to agree on what the programme is supposed to do. Some see it as a mechanism for helping sustain momentum on mitigation between global stocktakes and for carrying forward political signals on emissions reductions. Others argue that the MWP was never intended to play that role and should remain a strictly facilitative platform focused on practical exchange and learning. Parties have also raised concerns about duplication with other processes and whether it is delivering sufficient value relative to the time and resources invested.
These differences have proven difficult to bridge. At 64th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64), Parties were unable to reach conclusions on the future of the MWP, leaving fundamental questions about its role, scope, and direction unresolved ahead of COP31. Despite this deep divergence, there remains a compelling case for preserving and strengthening the MWP.
First, the circumstances in which the programme was created have not disappeared; they have become more urgent. As governments confront rising temperatures, growing implementation challenges, economic pressures, and geopolitical uncertainty, the need for practical international cooperation on mitigation remains substantial. The MWP provides a dedicated forum where Parties, experts, practitioners, financial institutions, and other stakeholders can share experiences, identify implementation barriers, discuss investment needs, and explore solutions.
More importantly, the MWP serves a broader political function. The only formal, reoccurring agenda item under the Paris Agreement dedicated to mitigation, the MWP represents a visible expression of the continued centrality of emissions reductions within the climate regime. At a time when increasing attention is rightly being devoted to adaptation, resilience, loss and damage, and managing climate impacts, maintaining a dedicated mitigation space sends an important signal that emissions reductions remain indispensable and central to the global response.
Success at COP31 will be measured to a large extent by whether it sends a credible message that international cooperation on mitigation remains alive, relevant, and capable of supporting accelerated implementation in an increasingly difficult political environment.
Many Parties have put forward thoughtful suggestions for improving the efficacy of MWP, including:
- timelines for extension of the work programme: whether the MWP should conclude in 2030, continue beyond the current decade, or be periodically reviewed and adjusted over time. Options include extending the MWP through 2030, continuing it beyond 2030 to support future NDC cycles, or establishing a process for periodic review rather than a fixed end date.
- topic selection for global dialogues and investment focused events: how to balance continuity and flexibility in topic selection, including options ranging from maintaining annual topic selection through submissions, adopting multi-year themes, organizing discussions around sectoral frameworks, or aligning topics more closely with the global stocktake.
- timing and sequencing for global dialogues and investment focused events: whether changes to the timing, location, and sequencing of dialogues and investment-focused events—such as moving to host them on the margins of the SBs and COPs—could improve participation, investment engagement, and implementation outcomes.
- outputs from global dialogues and investment focused events: whether MWP outputs should do more to communicate implementation lessons, barriers, opportunities, and financing needs while remaining non-prescriptive and facilitative. Options range from factual summaries through to producing more targeted reports for policymakers, financiers, and implementers and elevating key messages via COP decisions.
- linkages with other processes: how the MWP should connect with global stocktakes, the Global Climate Action Agenda, finance and technology mechanisms, and other climate processes without duplicating mandates.
At a time when sustained attention to emissions reductions is more important than ever, the debate over continuation of a reformed MWP should not obscure the larger political question before Parties: whether the UN climate process continues to maintain a dedicated space focused on emissions reductions at a moment when the world most needs progress on mitigation.
As Parties consider the future of the MWP, they should not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. They should quickly converge on a simplified list of asks from COP31 to maximize the chances of extending a more effective MWP.
A decision to renew and strengthen the MWP would send an important message that the world has not stopped trying to reduce emissions, and that multilateral cooperation still has a role to play in bringing temperatures back down to 1.5°C.
