The problem with ‘mega-COPs’: can a 50,000-person conference still tackle climate change?

🔦 Navigate COP30 unmissable events with our Insider's Guide

Governments from around the world are convening in Belém, Brazil for the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and with them, many actors from industry and business, civil society, research institutions, youth organisations and Indigenous Peoples’ groups, to name but a few. Since the adoption of the Paris agreement on climate change in 2015, COP participation numbers have ballooned. COP28 in Dubai was attended by 83,884 participants – a record – and while numbers fell to 54,148 at COP29 in Baku last year, they remained well above those at COP21 in Paris.

These events, which have been described as “mega-COPs”, have come under criticism for the enormous carbon footprint they generate. Research I conducted with Lisanne Groen of Open Universiteit on the participation of non-state actors identifies two further problems. First, the quantity of participants is undermining the quality of participation, as large numbers of non-state actors have to compete for a limited number of meeting rooms, side event slots, opportunities to speak publicly, and chances to engage in dialogue with decision makers. Second, the “mega-COP” trend is driving a widening gap between these actors’ expectations of participation and the realities of the process.

A fair way to downsize

When it comes to the first problem, the obvious solution is to downsize the COPs, but this is not so easy in practice. The decision to hold COP30 in the Amazonian city of Belém – difficult to access and with only 18,000 hotel beds – was thought to be an attempt to move beyond “peak COP”. With tens of thousands of people predicted to attend, some participants appear undeterred by the remote location, but the limited supply of beds has caused prices to surge, raising concerns about costs and their potential effect on the “legitimacy and quality of negotiations”, as reported by Reuters.

As the COPs have grown in size, they have generated more and more political and media attention, so that they are now seen as “the place to be”. This creates pressure on nongovernmental organisations and other non-state actors to attend. Just as the gravitational force of large bodies of mass attracts other objects to them, the mass of “mega-COPs” attracts increasing numbers of participants, in a self-reinforcing cycle that is difficult to break.

The fairest way to downsize the COPs, we argue, is by shining a spotlight on the little-known “overflow” category of participants. This category once allowed governments to add delegates to the events without their names appearing on participant lists, but these names have been publicly reported since the introduction of new transparency measures in 2023. At COP28, there were 23,740 “overflow” participants. These are not government negotiators, but often researchers or industry representatives who have close connections with governments.

COPs are intergovernmental processes: they are created by governments, for governments. Consequently, priority goes to government requests for access badges. Only once all government requests have been met can remaining badges be allocated to admitted non-state actors, which are known as “observers”. Overflow participants are therefore benefiting at the expense of these observer organisations. Pressuring governments to either limit or remove the overflow category could free up many more badges for observers while still reducing the overall number of COP participants in a more equitable manner.

An ‘expectation gap’

The second problem – the expectation gap – relates to a growing misconception of the role of non-state actors in the climate policy negotiation process. Sovereign states are the only actors with the legitimacy to negotiate and adopt international law. The role of non-state actors is to inform and advocate, not to negotiate. Yet, recent years have seen increasing calls among certain groups of non-state actors for “a seat at the table” and the expectation that they will be able to participate on an equal footing with governments. This framing is reproduced online, including via social media, and inevitably leads to frustration and disappointment when they are confronted with the realities of the intergovernmental negotiations.

We see these misaligned expectations particularly in non-state actors who are newcomers to the process. The “mega-COPs” attract more and more first-time participants, who may not have the resources, including know-how and contacts, to effectively reach policymakers. These participants’ growing disillusionment undermines the legitimacy of the COPs – a precious commodity at a geopolitical moment when they are facing challenges from the new US administration – but also risks wasting the valuable ideas and enthusiasm that the newcomers bring.

Focusing on implementation

We see two solutions. First, capacity-building initiatives can build awareness around the intergovernmental nature of the negotiations, and help new participants to engage effectively. One such initiative is the UNFCCC’s “Observer Handbook”. Many organisations and individuals produce their own resources to help first-time participants understand how the process works and how to get involved. Second, and more fundamentally, we need to channel the political, media and public attention away from the negotiations and toward the vital work of climate policy implementation.

COPs are much more than just negotiations – they are also a forum for bringing together the many actors that implement climate action on the ground to learn from each other and drive momentum. These activities, which take place in a dedicated zone of the COP called the “Action Agenda”, are of the utmost importance now that the negotiations on the Paris agreement have concluded and a new chapter focused on implementation begins. Whereas the role for non-state actors in the intergovernmental negotiations is rather limited, when it comes to implementation, their role is central. The actions of cities, regions, businesses, civil society groups and other NSAs can help bridge the gap between emissions-reduction targets in government pledges and the cuts that will be necessary to reach them.

The key issue, therefore, is to divert energy and attention toward the Action Agenda and policy implementation, to make them big enough to exert their own gravitational pull and set in motion positive, self-reinforcing dynamics for climate action. We are heartened to see the Brazilian presidency labelling COP30 as “the COP of implementation” and calling for “Mutirão”, a collective sense of engagement and on-the-ground action that does not require a physical presence in Belém. This addresses both problems with the “mega-COPs” and offers exciting encouragement to channel the groundswell of energy to where it is most needed.

This article is also published on The Conversation. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Interested in the companies shaping our sustainable future? See on illuminem’s Data Hub™ the transparent sustainability performance, emissions, and climate targets of thousands of businesses worldwide.