By Sardar Khan Niazi

As the world marks nearly a decade since the 2015 Paris Agreement, the question looming over global climate diplomacy is whether the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings are still capable of delivering the scale of action science demands or whether they have become elaborate rituals, heavy on symbolism and light on enforcement. The Paris Agreement was hailed as a diplomatic triumph, uniting almost all nations behind a shared promise to limit global warming to well below 2°C while pursuing efforts to stay within 1.5°C. Yet, today, with global emissions continuing largely unabated and temperatures already breaching the 1.5°C threshold in multiple years, it is fair to ask whether the COP process requires a fundamental redesign. The strength of the Paris Agreement lay in its flexibility: instead of imposing legally binding national targets, it relied on voluntary, progressively stronger Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This architecture made universal participation possible especially from major emitters unwilling to be bound by strict top-down targets. However, the same flexibility has become its most glaring weakness. Many countries, including powerful G20 economies, have fallen short of their pledges; others have submitted goals so unambitious that they amount to little more than diplomatic box ticking. Without enforcement mechanisms, naming and shaming has become the default mode of accountability and even that has lost force in an era of geopolitical fragmentation. The COP meetings, meanwhile, have grown into sprawling spectacles attracting tens of thousands of delegates, lobbyists, NGOs, financiers and fossil-fuel representatives. Critics argue that the process has become too unwieldy to foster meaningful negotiation. Others note that while the rhetoric has become more urgent, the outcomes have become more modest. The incremental language of COP decisions reflects compromises shaped less by climate necessity and more by political feasibility. Still, it would be a mistake to dismiss the value of the COPs altogether. They remain the only platform where every nation, rich or poor, powerful or vulnerable, sits on equal footing. The progress on climate finance, although painfully slow, has relied on sustained political pressure within these forums. The establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund long demanded by climate-vulnerable countries, including Pakistan emerged directly from years of negotiation within the COP framework. Imperfect as they are, these outcomes would likely not have materialized without the annual cycle of global attention that COPs generate. The future of the process, however, depends on whether the world is willing to update its tools to match the urgency of the crisis. Three reforms stand out. First, NDCs must shift from voluntary ambition to credible planning. Countries should be required to submit detailed, verifiable roadmaps covering energy, industry, transport and land use not abstract percentage targets. These roadmaps must be subject to technical review panels empowered to assess feasibility and recommend adjustments. Second, anchor climate finance in predictability rather than political goodwill. The unmet $100 billion annual pledge shattered trust between developed and developing nations. The next finance framework should include multi-year commitments, assessed contributions from high-emitting countries and private-sector participation structured through clear regulatory incentives. For vulnerable states battling recurrent floods, heatwaves and droughts, reliable finance is not diplomacy; it is survival. Third, the COP meetings themselves need recalibration. Smaller, issue-focused negotiating platforms feeding into a streamlined annual summit could allow for deeper technical work and reduce the influence of lobbyists. The world does not need bigger climate conferences; it needs more disciplined ones. The Paris Agreement provided a vision. The coming COP meetings will determine whether that vision evolves into action or fades into aspiration. As climate impacts intensify across South Asia and beyond, the world cannot afford another decade of half-measures and diplomatic theatre. The process must deliver or be reimagined.

ReplyForwardAdd reaction