Reforming COP

AS THE dust settles on COP30 in Belém, Brazil, it is painfully clear that the Conference of the Parties, in its current form, is failing to deliver the scale, speed and credibility of action required to confront the climate emergency. What was once envisioned as a ground-breaking multilateral mechanism to unite nations against a common threat has increasingly become a slow-moving diplomatic ritual — heavy on speeches, light on implementation, and structurally constrained by politics, bureaucracy and power imbalances.

 

 

Despite decades of negotiations, emissions continue to rise, inequality persists, and the most vulnerable nations remain at the mercy of climate impacts they did little to cause. Meanwhile, debates on finance, mitigation, adaptation and loss-and-damage remain stuck in familiar stalemates. As the world edges closer to breaching the 1.5°C threshold, the limitations of the existing COP architecture are no longer a matter of debate but a matter of survival. The urgent question now is: Has COP lost its effectiveness—and if so, how boldly and how quickly can it be reformed to meet the existential crisis we face?

 

Limits of the current COP architecture

COP was established to provide a platform where nations could negotiate fair, science-based climate commitments, build trust and mobilise finance and action. Over the past three decades, however, the system has expanded into a sprawling annual gathering hosting tens of thousands of delegates, lobbyists, corporations, observers and media. Yet despite this scale, core outcomes remain modest, incremental and often disconnected from scientific urgency.

 

 

 

The most fundamental limitation lies in the consensus-based decision-making model. While consensus ensures that all countries have a voice, it also enables any single nation to block progress, turning climate diplomacy into a negotiation of lowest-common-denominator outcomes. When nations with deep fossil-fuel dependencies or geopolitical agendas refuse to move, the entire process stalls. The result is watered-down language, voluntary commitments and vague timelines that create the illusion of progress without driving real change.

 

 

The architecture is also deeply bureaucratic. The language of negotiations, rigid procedural rules and multi-layered technical committees create a system that is slow to respond and difficult for outsiders to navigate. At a time when climate disasters are accelerating — from deadly heatwaves to catastrophic floods — the gap between urgent climate realities and COP’s pace of decision-making widens each year. The process simply cannot keep up.

 

 

Another structural weakness is the entrenched imbalance of influence. Wealthy nations and powerful industries often dominate informal negotiations, while climate-vulnerable nations struggle for space, voice and leverage. Civil society, Indigenous communities and frontline activists — those closest to the impacts — are frequently relegated to side events rather than decision-making tables. Their presence adds symbolic diversity but not meaningful power. The disconnect between those who negotiate climate policy and those who suffer its consequences undermines both the legitimacy and effectiveness of COP outcomes.

 

 

Finance remains another major fault line. The long-standing commitment to mobilise $100 billion annually has repeatedly been missed, delayed or diluted. Where resources do exist, access is uneven, slow and burdened by complex requirements that low-capacity nations struggle to meet. Loss-and-damage funding, agreed in principle, remains vastly underfunded and highly political. For many countries, COP has become a forum where needs are acknowledged but not met.

 

 

Finally, the current COP system emphasises pledges over implementation. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are often announced with enthusiasm but lack credible pathways, enforcement mechanisms or consequences for non-compliance. As a result, global emissions continue to rise, adaptation deficits deepen and trust erodes.

 

 

 

The urgency of reform

THE scientific verdict is unequivocal: the coming decade will determine the planet’s long-term habitability. Crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks triggering irreversible tipping points — from ice-sheet collapse to Amazon dieback — that could unleash cascading global consequences. Yet the world remains on a trajectory towards more than 2.5°C of warming. The disconnect between science and COP outcomes is no longer tolerable. Reform is not an optional improvement — it is a planetary obligation.

 

 

There is also a crisis of political legitimacy. Many nations — especially in the Global South — are losing confidence in the COP process. They see broken financial promises, slow delivery and minimal accountability. Without significant reform, the COP framework risks becoming irrelevant, replaced by fragmented regional alliances, bilateral deals or ad-hoc climate clubs. Such fragmentation could deepen inequities and undermine coordination precisely when collective action is indispensable.

 

 

 

Reform is also necessary to restore trust. Communities losing homes, livelihoods and lives to climate impacts cannot wait for slow diplomatic cycles. Youth movements, Indigenous groups and vulnerable nations are demanding a model of climate governance that centres justice, responsibility and lived experience—not just emissions numbers and geopolitics. Reforming COP is therefore not only a matter of efficiency but one of fairness and moral responsibility.

 

 

 

How COP can be reformed

THE first pillar of reform must address decision-making. While consensus has symbolic value, it should not be the sole mechanism. Introducing qualified-majority voting or supermajority thresholds for critical issues — such as fossil-fuel phase-outs, climate finance or loss-and-damage mechanisms — would prevent single-country blockades. Such systems exist in other multilateral bodies and could be phased into COP, beginning with non-binding decisions before expanding to core negotiations.

 

 

The second priority is representation. COP must move from token inclusion to meaningful power-sharing with civil society, Indigenous communities, youth, women’s movements and frontline groups. A permanent council of non-state climate actors could be created with formal advisory authority and the ability to influence negotiation agendas. Their knowledge is critical to designing just and practical solutions, and their exclusion weakens outcomes.

 

 

Third, climate finance must be redesigned to be predictable, accessible and transparent. Instead of relying on voluntary pledges, COP could establish a mandatory financing framework tied to historical emissions or fossil-fuel profits. Innovative financing mechanisms — such as airline levies, maritime carbon fees or financial transaction taxes — could feed a dedicated global fund for adaptation and loss-and-damage. Funds should be disbursed through simplified channels, with direct access for local governments and community organisations, not only national ministries.

 

 

Fourth, implementation must become central to COP’s mandate. Between annual summits, a strengthened implementation council could monitor progress quarterly, verify data, provide technical support and trigger corrective action where countries fall behind. Public dashboards, independent scientific reviews and civil-society monitoring could make climate progress visible and trackable, transforming COP from a yearly event into a continuous accountability mechanism.

 

 

Fifth, capacity-building must be scaled up. Many vulnerable nations lack the technical expertise, institutional systems and financial tools needed to translate commitments into action. COP reforms should invest in long-term institutional strengthening — not just short project cycles — through peer exchanges, technology transfer and regional training hubs. Without capacity, commitments remain empty promises.

 

 

Sixth, transparency and compliance must be strengthened. Countries should be required to publish standardised annual reports not only on emissions but also on adaptation, finance mobilisation, gender equity and human rights. An independent compliance body could review submissions, investigate failures and recommend sanctions or corrective measures, introducing consequences into a system currently governed largely by goodwill.

 

 

Finally, COP should include an emergency mechanism. When climate disasters strike or scientific thresholds are crossed, the world should not wait twelve months to respond. Emergency COP sessions could trigger rapid financing, resource mobilisation or accelerated decision-making for affected regions. In an era of escalating climate shocks, agility is essential.

 

 

 

Countering resistance and building legitimacy

REFORM will inevitably face pushback — from fossil-fuel economies, political actors guarding sovereignty and industries profiting from the status quo. The key to overcoming resistance lies in phased implementation, coalition-building and transparency. Reform should begin with areas enjoying broad support — such as finance transparency and implementation tracking—before moving into more politically sensitive areas like voting procedures or mandatory finance. Engaging governments early, providing clear evidence and maintaining open consultation with civil society will help build legitimacy. Reform must be understood not as punishment but as a pathway to shared survival.

 

 

 

Reimagining COP as a tool for justice and action

 

IF REFORMED, COP can become more than a negotiation stage. It can serve as a global platform where ambition meets accountability, where vulnerable nations wield meaningful influence and where climate justice shapes decisions. By shifting from promises to delivery, from exclusion to participation and from paralysis to action, COP can reclaim its purpose.

 

 

The world does not need another thirty years of incrementalism. It needs a bold, just and effective system capable of responding to the greatest threat of our time.

 

 

COP was born from a powerful idea: that humanity, when faced with a shared existential danger, could come together to act. That idea remains vital. But the institution must evolve to meet the moment. Reforming COP is not only necessary — it is urgent. The future will judge us not by the speeches we delivered in climate halls, but by the systems we built to save lives, protect the planet and secure a liveable future for generations to come.

 

 

 

Musharraf Tansen is a development analyst and former country representative of the Malala Fund