The upcoming annual climate conference, commonly referred to as the Conference of the Parties (COPs), is scheduled to be held at Expo City Dubai from November 30 to December 12. It anticipates the participation of more than 70,000 attendees. This annual conference has seen a gradual increase in the number of participants over the years. This growth became particularly pronounced after COP 15 in Copenhagen, which saw a staggering attendance of 26,661 delegates. Subsequent COP 26 and 27 sessions hosted 40,000 and 33,000 delegates, respectively, marking the highest levels of participation to date. The post-Paris era has maintained an average of 27,000 attendees.

While the annual COP is a unique forum where the most impoverished nations can engage with industrialised ones and voice their concerns, the massive post-Paris turnout seems unjustifiable. The role of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the post-Paris Agreement world, particularly post-2020, is expected to evolve. With the Paris Agreement in place and the Paris Rulebook nearly finalised, the focus will shift from creating new rules and institutions to implementing the agreement.

In light of these evolving expectations, COPs will increasingly emphasise catalysing climate action and international support, both in terms of financing and capacity building. These changing priorities will also impact the types of state actors attending future annual conferences. Hence, it's timely to address questions about the number of participants and the frequency of the UNFCCC governing body sessions. Specifically, we need to address the following questions: Do we truly need such vast numbers to accomplish our global climate goals? Is it necessary for delegates from wealthy countries to arrive at the COPs in their private jets? Is an annual COP still the most efficient means to achieve the Paris Agreement's goals?

Post-2020 era

Given the anticipated new functions of the UNFCCC in the post-2020 period, there's a valid argument for reducing the size of the COPs from the post-Paris norm of 20,000 participants to pre-Kyoto levels (around 5,000). This reduction can be achieved by focusing exclusively on technical aspects related to the implementation of the Paris Agreement, while political matters could be discussed in other UNFCCC-established forums, such as the Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action and the Regional Climate Weeks.

Currently, COPs comprise two zones: The inner Blue Zone, primarily for state actors; and the outer Green Zone, where non-state actors engage in climate action activities. The functions occurring in the Green Zone and other High-Level Segments could be relocated to a new global climate event under the UNFCCC's purview. This would streamline discussions to focus solely on the technical aspects of the Paris Agreement and reduce the size of COPs to pre-Kyoto levels.

Researchers have proposed a new annual global climate event called the "Global Climate Action Week" (GCAW), primarily designed for High-Level Segments and activities targeting non-state actors. The GCAW should be overseen by the respective COP presidencies and host countries. Importantly, the GCAW wouldn't make decisions for the multilateral regime but could serve as a valuable forum for addressing issues crucial to multilateral negotiations, potentially leading to breakthrough agreements similar to the Paris Agreement in 2015.

The COP serves as a catalyst for climate action by its very existence, and its role in enforcing actions will be more crucial in the coming decade than ever before. Therefore, it's vital to ensure that COPs take place with the necessary frequency to drive climate action. The annual conference of the parties has been a cornerstone of the international climate regime, with gradual incremental progress over the last three decades. However, it has also presented various challenges.

One of the main advantages of the annual COP is its ability to draw the attention of the entire world to the impacts of climate change. There is a question whether it would continue to do so in the future. Moving into the future, it is very important to pay attention to whether the annual COP maintains the current global attention, given the multiple action-related announcements being made throughout the year.

There's also a sequencing-related challenge, as many party subgroups meet annually outside the COP in forums like the UN, G7, G20 and other bilateral summits. These subgroups often make ambitious announcements regarding mitigation, finance and other climate actions outside the COPs. Additionally, national processes concerning climate may not align with the COP's schedule.

Recognising the 2020-30 decade as a critical and final opportunity to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, alliances like the African Group of Negotiators, Alliance of Small Island States and Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean argue for the continuity of annual COP conventions to take action on Paris Agreement decisions. They stress the importance of the annual convention for making the Paris Agreement fully operational and completing the mandates and commitments in this critical decade.

However, only one developed country, Switzerland, has expressed its views regarding the frequency of governing body meetings. Switzerland advocates that with the Paris Rulebook adopted and most of the Paris Agreement implementation rules agreed upon, it's an opportune time to consider changing the frequency of COPs. Switzerland cites examples from other environmental processes, such as the Convention on Biodiversity, the Vienna Convention, and the Montreal Protocol, where annual meetings aren't indicative of an environmental process' importance. Switzerland proposes holding COP meetings twice every five years, aligning with the five-year cycle of the Global Stocktake and updated communication of Nationally Determined Contributions.

Focus should shift

With the anticipated shift in the role and functions of the UNFCCC in the post-2020 era, the discussion surrounding the frequency and size of COPs has become an urgent matter. Reducing the scale of COPs and the frequency of their occurrence could offer several significant advantages. Firstly, it could enhance the overall efficiency of COPs by allowing for a more targeted focus on the technical details and negotiations required for the effective implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Moreover, smaller COPs would make hosting these events more accessible to smaller and less affluent nations. Consider countries like Nepal, which currently may struggle to organise COPs that attract tens of thousands of participants. Small COPs would provide a unique opportunity to host COPs, showcasing the real and immediate impacts of climate change, particularly in regions like the Himalaya. Hosting COPs in such locations not only emphasises the global importance of addressing climate change but also underscores the urgency of the situation.

In essence, the post-2020 era calls for a re-evaluation of the COPs model to align with the changing dynamics of the climate action landscape. The focus should shift from the quantity of participants to the quality of negotiations and actions taken.