As the latest intersessional meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has just concluded, and the international rules-based cooperation system is increasingly under pressure due to budget deficits and countries disregarding previously agreed-upon rules, it is timely to examine the possible future of the international climate policy framework.
Alongside the growing number of states circumventing international legal norms (such as the United States’ bombing of Iran without authorization from the UN Security Council) the United Nations is also facing a severe budgetary crisis, driven by chronic delays in member states’ financial contributions. This situation is further exacerbated by the reduced level of support from the United States. The resulting financial shortfall poses a significant threat to the functioning of one of the key institutions of international cooperation. Since rules-based multilateral cooperation is one of the cornerstones of international peace, stability, and development, safeguarding the effective operation of the UN is of utmost importance.
The current financial and trust crises present an opportunity to rethink how the UN can be restructured to meet the challenges of the 21st century. While reform processes and various systemic transformation initiatives—such as Our Common Agenda, UN 2.0, and the Pact for the Future—have been underway for years, it now appears that comprehensive renewal is essential for the UN’s survival.
According to a recently leaked internal document, UN Secretary-General António Guterres is considering several measures to address the crisis, aiming to reduce costs and improve the efficiency of the UN. These include consolidating UN mandates under four overarching thematic pillars, with climate change-related activities—central to this article—falling under the “sustainable development” pillar. The internal document suggests, on the one hand, that the Secretariat of the UNFCCC be effectively integrated into the Nairobi-based United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and on the other hand, that the current operational model of global climate conferences should be rethought.
With last year’s COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan having concluded the detailed negotiations of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the international climate policy process has finally entered the phase of practical implementation. This makes it especially important to consider how the UNFCCC system can support faster and more effective action against climate change.
What Does the Future Hold?
Although discussions have been ongoing for years on how to make international climate negotiations more effective, transparent, and streamlined, opposition from some Parties has so far prevented such changes. Therefore, it is essential that any reform of the UNFCCC system is carried out in a way that maintains the trust and support of governments. As climate negotiations under the UN have grown into the largest multilateral process of the past three decades, this is no small task. The reform must focus on two main areas: the annual climate conferences and the structure and operations of the UNFCCC Secretariat itself.
Reforming the Climate Conferences
The annual climate conferences, or COPs, have faced mounting criticism—both for the slow pace of decision-making and for the environmental footprint associated with hosting such events. It is important to emphasize that all countries must be able to participate and express their views in multilateral processes, so discontinuing COPs altogether is not an option. However, reevaluating how they are organized is worthwhile.
In recent years, these multi-week events have drawn 60,000 to 80,000 participants, leading to significant emissions due to travel and logistics, and making the conferences extremely costly. This year’s COP has come under particular fire because the Brazilian government is reportedly clearing forests to build roads to the conference venue. Meanwhile, two years ago, a record 2,500 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access to the conference—undermining public trust in the integrity of the process.
These annual climate conferences are composed of three physically distinct segments. The first and most important is the official UN negotiation track, which includes representatives from countries, international organizations, and civil society. Today, these participants make up a minority. While negotiations remain necessary for decision-making and institutional function, the conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol and the adoption of the Paris Agreement’s rulebook mean many negotiation tracks can be closed, reducing the number of necessary participants.
From a logistical standpoint, there have been proposals to reduce the frequency of COPs to every two years. In the intervening (odd-numbered) years, technical preparatory meetings—typically held at the UNFCCC Secretariat’s headquarters in Bonn—could serve the process. This would reduce travel and associated environmental impacts. It is also vital to stipulate that only countries with a minimum level of existing infrastructure be allowed to host COPs, to avoid issues such as deforestation in Brazil.
The second segment is the high-level portion, attended by heads of state and government, alongside royalty, celebrities, and business leaders—often arriving by private jet, setting a poor example for the public. For host countries, this is a prestigious event, and they aim to attract as many high-profile attendees as possible to boost their global visibility. While political support for UN processes is important, this is already achieved through the UN General Assembly each September, where the same individuals attend climate-related events, sign declarations, and make pledges at the invitation of the UN Secretary-General. Therefore, this segment could be eliminated from the COPs.
Finally, the third element of climate conferences is the expo, which showcases various technologies, projects, initiatives, and lobbying efforts. These expos typically have a closed section for delegates and an open, public-facing component. They attract the largest crowds and significantly inflate the size of the conferences. Although expos provide decision-makers and citizens with insight into new technologies and solutions, their environmental cost—thousands of people traveling for a handful of demonstrations—is questionable. As an alternative, the UN has already begun organizing Regional Climate Weeks, smaller, geographically focused events that address regional challenges with local experts. These involve less travel, are better tailored to local contexts, and may offer a more sustainable alternative to the large expos held during annual COPs—thus helping reduce the environmental footprint of COPs.
The Future of the Institutional Framework of International Climate Policy
The position of the UNFCCC Secretariat itself also warrants discussion. As noted, following the conclusion of the rulemaking phase, the Secretariat must adapt its operations. While the aforementioned internal document proposes placing the UNFCCC under the UNEP, a better option may be available. If the goal is to support sustainable development—as the document suggests—it would be more appropriate to align the UNFCCC with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which could better facilitate the implementation of UNFCCC commitments.
Such an arrangement would have several benefits. First, it could leverage the UNDP’s capabilities, especially through its Climate Promise initiative, which supports countries in designing and implementing their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Second, it would signal a clear institutional commitment to what the UN has long emphasized: climate protection and sustainable development are inseparable. Third, it could inject new momentum into the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 2030 Agenda. Finally, the UNDP already supports numerous climate and green projects and has experience in practical implementation.
This model would allow the UNFCCC Secretariat to focus its limited budget on its core functions, while its partnership with the UNDP would ensure that climate actions are effectively integrated into the broader UN system and implemented more efficiently.
However, it is critical to underline that regardless of the direction the UNFCCC ultimately takes, addressing the global challenge of climate change must—and can—be achieved only through a global, rules-based system.
