Paul Watkinson, a former chief climate negotiator for France, is now working independently to enhance the multilateral climate process and bolster climate action measures.
With the approach of COP30 in Belém, the emphasis should transition from procedural aspects to tangible impact. A robust response is needed to counter challenges to multilateralism and to increase efforts in emissions reduction, adaptation, loss and damage, and financial commitments.
While the traditional agendas, including critical topics such as adaptation indicators, just transition, finance, and the follow-up of the global stocktake, will play significant roles, they alone do not represent the pivotal element required for Belém’s success.
Some have proposed that an additional political statement, often referred to as a “cover decision,” could serve as a means to address the considerable gaps in global climate ambition and action.
Comment: Why COP30 needs a cover decision to succeed
Although maximizing the impact of Belém is crucial, a cover decision may not be the most effective tool. The focus should shift from disputes over decision wording to actively supporting and facilitating implementation.
What are the potential drawbacks of a cover decision? Many COPs function well without one, and with effective leadership from the host nation, Brazil this year, outcomes can be effectively communicated, whether results are in a single decision or multiple ones.
A cover decision does not necessarily offer a clearer overview of outcomes across various work streams, nor does it simplify balancing different priorities. It can even complicate the final days if it overlaps with ongoing substantive negotiations on parallel decisions, a concern noted in Sharm El Sheikh in 2023.
“Christmas tree” of issues
Initially, the rationale for a cover decision at Glasgow in 2021 was to address mitigation ambition, and a similar case could be made for Belém. However, proposing a cover decision tends to broaden the debate, risking the inclusion of a wide array of topics, likened to a “Christmas tree.” While this can ensure balance, it may also lead to a proliferation of issues, as demonstrated by the 17 sections of the Sharm El Sheikh cover decision.
Furthermore, cover decisions often result in poorly defined mandates. Although there were valid reasons for certain work programs from Glasgow and Sharm El Sheikh, there was minimal discussion about their scope or aims prior to adoption, leading to ongoing struggles in agreement on implementation.
COP30 president hints Brazil may be open to a cover decision in Belém
Efforts should focus on streamlining and enhancing existing mandates, establishing processes that lead to tangible outcomes rather than complicating the process further.
The central question is what a cover decision at COP30 would concretely accomplish. Would it effectively prompt the revision of NDCs, as requested in Glasgow? If the focus remains on decision wording without real-world impact, it risks being mere posturing.
A Belém Implementation Plan
What alternative approach could be more effective? Transitioning to an implementation forum, as suggested previously, could be key.
The Action Agenda, which mobilizes voluntary climate action across sectors, could serve as a vehicle for this shift, with the advantage of not requiring consensus outcomes. However, significant improvements are necessary for it to be effective.
The Brazilian presidency’s alignment with this direction, evident in the reorganization of the Action Agenda as outlined by the COP president, is encouraging.
To be successful, an implementation forum must address the Action Agenda’s current weakness—its frequent announcements without credible follow-up or implementation. This must be rectified.
Global South campaigners question inclusivity of COP30 as some stay home
Coordination in the final days of the COP should focus on presenting a Belém Implementation Plan, rather than negotiating another cover decision. This plan would provide clarity on the continuation of all efforts, outlining who is responsible, what is to be achieved, and when, with clear results expected within the next year or two. It would also specify the timing and location of an implementation forum in 2026 to oversee progress, led by the COP30 presidency and other key stakeholders.
Maximizing real-world action
This plan would be inclusive, involving not only parties but also international organizations, financial institutions, businesses, sub-national governments, and civil society. It would encapsulate key political messages—on mitigation ambition, adaptation, finance, loss, and damage—as actionable results rather than mere rhetoric.
Altering the UNFCCC’s tradition of negotiating decisions will be challenging. Despite arguments against it, some may still believe that the outcome should include a decision text. If it can be concise and focused, it could be acceptable, provided there is an accompanying implementation forum for credibility.
The leaders’ summit preceding COP30’s opening may also offer opportunities to articulate high-level calls for enhanced action. The outcome might be a blend of different approaches.
The key point is that relying solely on a cover decision as a measure of success in Belém is insufficient, as it carries a significant risk of future disappointment.
Belém must set higher ambitions, aiming for COP30 to be a turning point towards enhanced credibility and, most importantly, maximizing real-world impact.
Original Story at www.climatechangenews.com