Is the COP process failing to tackle climate change?

The exact words from President Trump while signing the executive orders and withdrawing the US from the Paris Climate Agreement were “...we’re going to save over a trillion dollars by withdrawing from that treaty.” 

 

Earlier in his remarks he also mentioned: “I'm immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off. The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.” 

 

This also got a loud cheer from the audience.

As the world struggles with the spiraling impacts of climate change, the role of the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has come under review. While COP has been instrumental in bringing nations together to discuss climate challenges, it has increasingly faced criticism for its inefficiencies, limited impact, and inability to deliver meaningful outcomes for vulnerable nations.

 

 

The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement back in 2017 under the first Trump administration highlighted the fragility of the international climate regime. It also raised fundamental questions about the effectiveness of the COP process in holding countries accountable and addressing the disproportionate impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities. Recent developments, including COP29, have further underscored the urgent need to reassess the COP model to ensure it meets the scale of the crisis.

 

 

The Paris Agreement, adopted at COP21 in 2015, was celebrated as a landmark in climate diplomacy, with its goal to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C. However, the voluntary nature of the agreement left it vulnerable to political shifts, as seen when the United States -- the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases -- announced its withdrawal. 

 

 

While the Biden administration reversed this decision in 2021, the episode exposed the structural weaknesses of the COP framework, which relies on goodwill rather than binding commitments.

One of the most glaring shortcomings of COP is its failure to deliver on financial commitments. Developed countries pledged at COP15 in 2009 to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020 to help developing nations adapt to and mitigate climate change. 

 

 

This promise remains unmet, leaving countries like Bangladesh with insufficient resources to build climate resilience. The delays in operationalizing the loss and damage fund, agreed upon at COP27 in 2022, further illustrate the disconnect between COP declarations and real-world action.

The recently concluded COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, illustrates many of the structural issues that hinder progress, from its sheer scale and inefficiencies to the exclusion of critical voices from vulnerable communities.

 

 

COP29 registered 66,778 delegates, including 3,975 virtual participants, making it the second-largest climate COP in history, after COP28 in Dubai. However, the size of these gatherings raises questions about their effectiveness in tackling climate change. 

While the high participation suggests broad engagement, it also exposes the logistical challenges and inefficiencies of such massive events. With over 70,000 participants, including more than 33,000 party representatives and nearly 10,000 NGO delegates, COP29 became another example of the bloated, cumbersome process that struggles to translate discussions into meaningful actions.

 

 

The distribution of delegates at COP29 also raises concerns about equity and representation. Host country Azerbaijan fielded the largest delegation, with 2,229 representatives, followed by Brazil (1,914) and Turkey (1,862). Developed nations like the United States and major emitters like China also sent large delegations, while smaller, vulnerable nations struggled to ensure adequate representation.

 

For Bangladesh and other vulnerable nations, the failure of the COP process to deliver on its promises is not just a policy failure -- it is a failure to protect lives, livelihoods, and futures

 

Papua New Guinea’s decision to withdraw its delegation from the recent COP29 entirely highlights the challenges faced by smaller nations. Limited resources often prevent these countries from fully participating in negotiations, undermining their ability to advocate for their interests. 

 

This is particularly concerning for nations like Bangladesh, which bear the brunt of climate change despite contributing minimally to global emissions, the stakes could not be higher. Rising sea levels threaten to submerge significant portions of its coastal areas, potentially displacing up to 13 million people by 2050. 

 

 

Cyclones and flooding have already become more frequent and intense, causing billions of dollars in damage and undermining development gains. Yet, the voices of vulnerable communities in Bangladesh and other developing nations often remain marginalized in global climate negotiations.

These inefficiencies call for a fundamental restructuring of the COP process. One potential approach is to decentralize climate negotiations, focusing on national and regional actions while reducing the frequency of global COP gatherings. 

 

 

Annual national-level climate summits could be organized by individual governments, allowing countries to tailor climate action plans to their specific needs and contexts. For Bangladesh, such localized efforts could prioritize building embankments to protect coastal communities, investing in climate-resilient agriculture, and addressing the displacement of millions due to rising sea levels.

 

 

Regional collaboration could also play a critical role in addressing shared climate challenges. South Asian nations, for instance, could work together on issues like river basin management, disaster preparedness, and renewable energy transitions. Such regional efforts could complement national actions and provide a more focused platform for addressing cross-border climate impacts.

 

 

A full-scale global COP could then be held every four years, with a smaller, more focused group of negotiators participating in person. Virtual platforms could be leveraged to ensure broader participation and transparency, reducing the environmental footprint of the event. This approach would allow for more in-depth deliberations and actionable outcomes, addressing the criticism that annual COPs often produce lofty statements but lack follow-through.

 

 

The failure of the COP process to adequately address these challenges is not just a procedural issue, it is a matter of climate justice. Developed nations, which bear the historical responsibility for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, must take greater accountability. This includes meeting and exceeding their financial commitments, supporting technology transfer, and ensuring that the loss and damage fund is operationalized swiftly and equitably.

 

 

At the same time, the COP process must evolve to reflect the realities of a rapidly changing world. The reliance on voluntary commitments, the logistical inefficiencies of annual global gatherings, and the exclusion of marginalized voices all point to the need for a more inclusive, efficient, and action-oriented approach. 

 

 

Decentralizing climate negotiations, strengthening accountability mechanisms, and prioritizing localized solutions could help bridge the gap between ambition and action.

As the world moves forward, it is clear that incremental changes will not suffice. The climate crisis demands transformative action, rooted in equity and justice. For Bangladesh and other vulnerable nations, the failure of the COP process to deliver on its promises is not just a policy failure -- it is a failure to protect lives, livelihoods, and futures. 

 

 

It is time to reimagine global climate governance to ensure that it serves the people who need it most. 

Dabaraj Dey is Head of Project Management Unit, Oxfam in Bangladesh.