You've been part of the COP process in different capacities over the years. What are some of the most important things you've learned?
One of the most important lessons for me is that you don’t just prepare and contribute to a COP just during the two weeks of negotiations. What happens before and after the COP really matters. The ability to look at the longer trajectory, even three years ahead, is important. We need to approach it in a much more dynamic way — for the short-term opportunity that it provides, but also as part of a longer-term process.
For the COP Presidency to be successful, it must work with the Presidency that precedes and follows it. From my perspective, having a good vision for the COP Presidency, how it's going to deliver and a supportive communication strategy are very important.
What is the private sector and civil society’s role in the COP process? How can the Presidency work effectively with them?
Civil society organisations have been following international climate negotiations for decades. They have an institutional memory that many in government don't.
The private sector and philanthropic organisations are also playing an increasing and more visible role. Philanthropic organisations have always supported research and movement-building. They also often helped create the necessary neutral spaces to bring key stakeholders together to make decisions and find solutions.
I will never forget a prominent negotiator, a head of delegation from a prominent country, saying to me: “I didn’t realise that the private sector would be keen for us to do that and would actually be supporting this effort!”
My experience in civil society was very galvanising. When I was at the World Resources Institute, I was managing a consortium of think tanks and NGOs from around the world that helped design what the Paris Agreement could look like. In order to bring legitimacy by ensuring the proposals we put forward, we didn’t come from just one think tank from one part of the world. We brought different perspectives together from different constituencies and geographies to identify what a successful compromise could look like.
This effort was a success, so after the Paris Agreement was done, we discussed what the implementation guidelines could look like. It was like a civil society mini-negotiation.
One of the most transformative convenings was when we brought various constituencies together in the same meeting, including faith-based communities, the private sector, negotiators and policymakers.
I will never forget a prominent negotiator, a head of delegation from a prominent country, saying to me: “I didn’t realise that the private sector would actually be keen for us to be that bold and would actually be supporting this effort and action!”
That showed that it’s very easy — whether for lack of inclusive governance processes or lack of experience — to miss out on productive stakeholder engagement.
Delegations also need to engage with civil society, the science community, the business community and the NGOs in a consistent manner throughout the year leading up to COP so that you’re not just doing something for the people but with the people. That’s particularly important during critical political milestones, or technical but equally important exercises like preparing climate plans or biennial progress reports. We should also be more creative in how to use different moments leading up to the COP to mobilise people who aren't able to participate in person.
What can a Presidency do to work more effectively with subnational governments?
First of all, the host city can become a model of sustainability. It’s great if the Presidency can engage the host city in the journey and the city can share what they aspire to be, how they want to get there and where they are on that journey.
Secondly, the action agenda of the COPs can mobilise mayors and local leaders — who are closer to the people and local needs — to consider implementation in a much more contextual setting.
We saw a lot of that from Lima (COP20) to Paris (COP21). Those two COPs really created a turning point in how to engage cities and other subnational actors, as well as a groundswell of other actors in the process.
Organisations like mine working in the US face uncertainty after the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement for the second time. There’s not a very sustained pathway at the federal level. Still, we can make sure that the cities and the states stay in.
The ‘We Are Still In’ movement is important. It played a critical role in enabling the US to bounce back after withdrawing from the Paris Agreement the first time.
This time we have to work even harder and more creatively. We must accept that we need to do things differently. We must also understand why we were not resonating with the people and use this opportunity to learn and re-imagine our engagement and movement.
How can COP Presidencies change the narrative on climate change so it resonates more?
Over the past few years, we’ve learned that we, as an international community, haven’t been good enough at talking about climate. We've been too technocratic.
That means a lot of the effort and signals remain disconnected from the reality of the people we want to bring with us.
I think it's absolutely urgent now that we recalibrate and reimagine the way we talk about climate change: not just from a molecular point of view, but in a way that connects it to people’s lives and livelihoods.
We have to make sure that we have the right messengers. It cannot be the same people talking to all different audiences.
It’s going to be absolutely critical to mobilise different messengers for different audiences. This nuanced approach involves adapting or tailoring some narratives to better align with the cultural, historical, and political context of a region or constituency.
What is an inclusive COP — and what can presidencies do to create more inclusive COPs going forward?
Inclusion means bringing different voices to the table to decide together. I’m not just talking about the two weeks of formal negotiations; it's the whole process running up to the COP that needs to be inclusive. Otherwise, there's an obvious risk that the COP will be perceived as tokenistic.
The COP is a long and complex process. If we only hear from Indigenous people, for example, in the two weeks before the COP, it may be too late, and unfortunately, it’s unlikely they’ll be fully considered at that point in the negotiations.
They felt betrayed because they were brought in too late and in a way that was too figurative. They perceived the initiative as being decided for them and not with them.
I remember the launch of initiatives that were targeted at a marginalised community at one COP in particular. Despite the very good intention, many of the organisations representing that marginalised community felt betrayed because they were brought in too late and in a way that was too figurative. They perceived the initiative as being decided for them and not with them.
Have you noticed any changes in recent years when it comes to inclusion?
Over the years, I’ve seen some good trends and efforts to make COP more than just a negotiation process between people who understand the same jargon. There’s been more focus on the action agenda and on bringing a groundswell of different actors.
Some of these COPs have attracted so many people that they have looked more like a jamboree or a fair than a catalytic implementation ground. I think it's very important to think about how to make those moments more meaningful — especially now that we’re in full implementation mode.
Brazil will test it out because COP30 in Belém will certainly not have the capacity to host 50,000 to 100,000 delegates like we saw in Dubai and more recent COPs. We need to be focused on using the limited time we have with the right people to really get to where we need to be.
Imagine we’re 10 years into the future and we’ve made all the right decisions. What does the COP process look like in 2035? What has it achieved?
Interestingly, in 2035, we may have overshot. Let’s try to be honest: the ride is going to be tough. But hopefully we would have passed the peak and been on a course of repair and rectification for the past three years — between 2032 and 2035.
In 2035, because of the COP’s successes, which were backed up by domestic actions, we wouldn’t have had to spend time creating another protocol or another agreement. We would have focused more on tools and means of implementation and innovation. There would be more coalitions of the willing. We'd be in a situation where there's a vibrant and catalytic race to the top — people fighting to be in the clubs of first movers and the most ambitious for more resilient and decarbonised societies.
It would be a time when we would fantasise about how new technologies and ancestral approaches, together, can create amazing new ways of life.
In 2035, we may also have many different types of multilateral settings: a COP of the negotiators among countries, like we have today, but also a similar space for the people and cities.
Then the process would not over-rely on that one anxious COP moment. Instead, it could bring more of the ‘lighthouse moments’ that we need. It would bring accountability to see that we’ve corrected and continue to self-correct, while also highlighting the extraordinary and exciting journey that the world is on.
It would be a time when we would fantasise about how new technologies and ancestral approaches, together, can create amazing new ways of life.
