The power of the process: why multilateral climate negotiations still matter

Scientists agree that climate change is the gravest and most urgent crisis we face. Countries need to cut emissions, manage escalating impacts and cope with unavoidable loss and damage.

As we approach the mid-year climate change meeting in Bonn (UNFCCC SB64), questions again surface as to the relevance of these negotiating spaces. Do they deliver?

The answer may seem obvious. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the cornerstone of global climate diplomacy; it has the legitimacy and mandate to deliver binding climate commitments. And the UNFCCC’s climate negotiations are the place – the only place – where parties can hold governments accountable to their climate pledges. They are fundamental for fostering global climate action that is fair and equitable.

Negotiating for survival and justice

Yet we see powerful governments drifting from this united space. And it is the countries with the least power − and so most in need of these negotiations − who will pay the price of this drift.

For countries watching the ocean swallow their land, decisions reached at these multilateral climate talks are a matter of survival.

The agreement at COP27 to establish a fund to help the most vulnerable nations cope with climate loss and damage was a pivotal moment. Steady, incremental progress over many years formed the groundwork on which this agreement was built, and the deal was only possible because the multilateral framework, under the COP presidency of Egypt, provided the final political push to deliver the outcome.

At COP30, it was the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) Group that put forward the ambitious proposal to triple adaptation finance. The idea gathered momentum and other country groups came on board − until it became a common position within the G77 and China, and thereby a united call across developing countries was reached.

The climate talks are also the only way to address historic responsibility − developing countries have caused the least pollution but are paying the highest price: rising seas are flooding homes; storms are ripping through streets and downing power lines; droughts are ruining crops and displacing whole communities. 

Yes, the negotiations are flawed. The imbalance of power is still glaringly obvious. Delivery lags behind political promises and achieving results can be painstakingly slow.

But these multilateral forums establish norms, rules, transparency and ongoing support for climate governance. For developing countries and particularly LDCs, they offer a seat at a table that is governed by principles of equity and climate justice. And it’s a table where every country gets a vote, and where the same rules − at least in principle − apply to all.

Developing countries need multilateralism for leverage

Multilateral agreements are lasting and create norms that bind powerful actors in ways that bilateral deals cannot. But now the actors who once championed them are walking away. And as they pull away from this unified space, they look sideways, scoping bilateral agreements with other nations.

When these countries leave, they don’t just take with them with their promises to reduce emissions, or pledges to commit finance. They take away a chunk of the structure that keeps multilateralism standing tall. At the same time, they create new power imbalances where bilateral deals become the tool for advancing national priorities. 

All this leaves weaker nations exposed; left to carry the consequences of decisions made by nations pushing their own national interest. Take for example, the European Union's carbon border adjustment mechanism. The mechanism’s premise of imposing levies on energy-intensive imports to incentivise producers to reduce carbon emissions is presented as climate action. But developing countries that export to Europe now face tariffs they had no hand in designing. 

This would create additional fiscal burden on vulnerable country economies already strained by climate impacts and debt, and with none of the industrial capacity to decarbonise quickly enough to avoid the levy. Thus, some countries are now demanding that unilateral trade measures be added to the UNFCCC agenda, forcing one-sided decision-making into multilateral negotiations.

So the real question isn't whether these multilateral talks are relevant or whether they deliver. But rather: can it be just to take away the only leverage that many vulnerable countries have?

Power in numbers

In the lead up to these Bonn climate negotiations − indeed in the lead up to every round of UNFCCC’s climate talks − conversations and questions turn to implementation: “Will these next set of talks deliver?” 

But focusing on the outcomes of one round of negotiations in isolation is to miss the bigger picture. Whether the high-level political COP summits or the mid-year technical sessions in Bonn – each form a crucial part of a decades-long multilateral decision-making process. Each are an incremental step towards tackling this crisis that has no borders. 

And this process has delivered. The framework convention delivered the Paris Agreement – arguably the UNFCCC’s most profound achievement – through bottom-up commitment on a scale that no bilateral deal or voluntary group effort could ever have matched. 

No, emissions are not falling fast enough. But still, trajectories are shifting and it was the multilateral framework that forced change in the direction of travel, by making it politically costly to do nothing. 

The Paris Agreement is underpinned by a precisely crafted system of shared rules and has its own review process. Each country is required to deliver on its own self-imposed commitments and report on progress against them. Sophisticated mechanisms are in place to ensure the system − and its outcomes − are anchored in equity and accountability. All these systems and mechanisms have been designed to achieve consensus-driven outcomes and collective action. 

It was countries with the least power and the most at stake who fought hardest for sealing the Paris Agreement. Time and again these countries have shown dynamism, ambition and leadership in driving the global response to climate change. 

Acting alone, these countries have limited leverage and resources to combat climate change. Crucially, the UN’s multilateral climate talks provide the space and platform for these countries to pool collective negotiating power and keep pressure on all nations so process and progress can remain on track.