Ten years after the world agreed on an historic framework for climate action, the very features that made the Paris agreement possible are now holding it back. Designed to foster cooperation, it has instead become a system for forging agreement rather than delivering change.

As world leaders head to Belém, Brazil, for “Cop30” – the 30th session of the international climate negotiations – here’s how the system broke, and how we can begin to fix it.

Back in 2015, the Paris agreement was not a foregone conclusion. Climate change isn’t one problem but many overlapping thorny issues, from the enormity of the challenge of trying to stop global warming to the huge disparities in states’ capacities to respond and the escalating intensity of catastrophic floods, wildfires and rising seas.

The Paris agreement was designed to achieve cooperation – which it admirably did. Through the UN, it brought all 195 countries together to establish a global policy framework, a triumph of multilateralism in a period where international cooperation was fraying on most other issues.

But reaching cooperation is supposed to be the beginning, not the end, of global climate governance.

Better than nothing – but not enough

Supporters rightly argue that the world is on a better path than it would be without the treaty. Before 2015, the world was on track for a catastrophic 4°C to 5°C of warming. Now, thanks to national pledges, we are on course for around 2.5°C to 3°C. That’s still unsafe but better than where we would have been without the agreement.

For the first time in history, renewables generate more electricity than coal. A new “loss and damage” fund will soon start helping vulnerable countries cope with climate change.

What is ‘loss and damage’? A climate scientist explains.

Yet, progress is slowing down and has even stagnated according to some measures. Global warming projections for 2100 are flatlining, with little improvement over the past few years. Emissions continue to increase. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached the highest level ever recorded last year. The fact that no UN climate summit agreement mentioned the idea of transitioning away from fossil fuels until 2023 suggests that movement on this front is likely to be very slow at best.

The seeds of its undoing

So what’s not working? One core feature of Paris is its flexible, bottom-up approach, where countries get to decide on their own targets and timelines. In theory, this allows for a diversity of approaches. In practice, it has allowed some countries to do the bare minimum or even try to obstruct the process.

The Paris agreement also hasn’t meaningfully changed some of the core practices that drive warming, including the financing, producing and consumption of fossil fuels. When it comes to fossil fuels, ironically, building in this level of flexibility into the agreement has resulted in a trenchant inflexibility among some countries to phase down.

Some countries don’t really want to cut their fossil fuels – and Paris can’t make them. Nattawit Khomsanit / shutterstock

Another problem with Paris system is the continued dominance of sovereign states and the exclusion of other key players such as businesses and citizen groups. The voices of those communities, for example Indigenous peoples, most impacted by climate change are often left out of the conversation. The biggest oil companies are responsible for far more greenhouse gases than most countries yet have no binding emissions limits under the Paris agreement.

Responding to climate change requires buy in from across all of society. Yet, recent climate summits have seen disproportionate representation of fossil fuel interests and negotiation leadership from countries who do not support the transition away from fossil energy. At the same time, most of the affected communities and innovators who are driving solutions and developing new technologies are left standing outside the negotiating rooms. Unless leaders take the interests of a wide array of groups seriously, the agreements they reach won’t be implemented.

The illusion of progress

The current system also falls short in terms of embedding the changes that are agreed at the annual summits. The case of the new loss and damage fund is illustrative. Despite celebratory headlines, progress has been slow. Delays are rife. Rich states overload under-resourced international bureaucrats, and attempt to outsource their responsibilities. Even the US$250 million (£192m) it is set to disburse is a drop in the ocean compared to the US$200 to US$400 billion a year that developing countries may need by 2030 to cope with storms, droughts, extreme heat and rising seas.

Cleanup begins in Montego Bay, Jamaica, after the recent Hurricane Melissa. Orlando Barria / EPA

As I document in my recent book, Governing the End: The Making of Climate Change Loss and Damage, these big announcements often unravel in implementation. All of this activity and pledge-making gives the illusion of progress with relatively little meaningful action down the line.

Empowering implementors and innovators

There is now widespread recognition that climate multilateralism is falling short. Brazil’s President Lula has proposed creating a UN climate change council to speed up implementation. He wants this body to enhance accountability and coordination and to be linked to the UN General Assembly.

Others want “climate clubs” – smaller coalitions of like-minded governments, businesses and people focused on specific climate policy objectives like food security or protecting children from the consequences of climate change.

The huge growth in climate change litigation is in some ways the most promising avenue for holding governments to account. For example, a recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change has played an important role in clarifying 1.5°C as the “primary temperature goal” of the Paris agreement and was clear that national governments have a legal duty to actively prevent further climate breakdown.

But litigation is slow and expensive. Relying on courts to enforce existing commitments is a second-best solution in many cases. An improved system of accountability to ensure that national action plans align with the latest scientific evidence is needed.

With Cop30 approaching, one lesson is clear: cooperation was only the beginning. What the world needs now is concrete action and accountability rather than more delay and diversion. Without that, the Paris system risks becoming a symbol of good intentions rather than a driver of real change.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like? Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---