THE Conference of the Parties (COP) emerged under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Its purpose was clear yet ambitious: to provide a multilateral forum where nations could collectively agree on measures to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations and prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.
The early years of the COP process reflected a sense of optimism. The Kyoto Protocol(1997) represented the first legally binding framework, committing industrialised countries to emission reductions. However, the absence of major emitters like the United States and the lack of commitments from developing countries weakened its implementation. The CopenhagenSummit (2009) exposed deep fractures between the developed and developing world over responsibility, finance, and fairness and marked a turning point in the politics of climate diplomacy.
This tension between collective ambition and national interest has defined every COP since. DesÂpite a shared understanding that no single natÂion can solve the climate crisis alone, each negotiation cycle has been mired in differing historical responsibilities, domestic economic priorities and conflicting definitions of ‘justice’ and ‘equity’.
At the heart of climate diplomacy lies a paradox that explains why a universally accepted agreement remains elusive in achieving its objective: the countries that are most responsible for climate change are not the ones most vulnerable to its effects. Industrialised nations built their wealth on fossil fuels, while developing countries like Pakistan now bear the brunt of resulting climate impacts of floods, droughts, glacial melt and food insecurity with limited capacity to adapt. Efforts to reach universal consensus are stymied by this historical imbalance. The North-South divide manifests in three recurring areas of contention:
Responsibility and burden-sharing: Developed countries resist strong language on liability and compensation, while developing countries demÂand recognition of loss and damage as a matter of climate justice.
The COP process has evolved or devolved into what many observers now describe as a ‘climate fair’.
Finance: Despite pledges, the promise on climate finance has not been fully delivered, and falls far short of need.
Ambition gap: Many countries’ Nationally Determined Contributionsremain insufficient to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The gap between pledges and implementation continues to widen. While the COP remains a vital arena for dialogue, its consensus-based decision-making model often leads to lowest-common-denominator outcomes with statements of intent rather than binding commitments.
The Paris Agreement (2015), celebrated as a diplomatic triumph for crafting a flexible, bottom-up framework, marked a shift from imposed obligations to voluntary pledges. Yet, a decade later, the reality is sobering. Global emissions continue to rise, and current trajectories point towards warming of around 2.7°C by the end of the century. Climate disasters from catastrophic floods in Pakistan to record heatwaves across Europe and droughts in the Horn of Africa underline that adaptation is no longer a distant concern but an immediate survival challenge.
Meanwhile, the COP process itself has evolved or devolved into what many observers now describe as a ‘climate fair’. Conference halls are crowded not only with negotiators but also with corporations, NGOs and lobbyists, all vying for visibility. While this diversity of actors fosters innovation and awareness, it has also blurred the focus. The spectacle often overshadows substance and announcements frequently outnumber actual deliverables. The risk is that COPs have become a performative rather than transformative stage for declarations, not decisions. Real progress increasingly occurs in smaller coalitions or outside the formal UNFCCC framework, through initiatives such as climate finance partnerships, regional adaptation programmes, and private sector decarbonisation alliances.
For Pakistan, it is time to reframe its approach from normative attendance to strategic influence using COP not just as a diplomatic event but a platform for survival advocacy. To make its participation strategic, Pakistan should consider the following approach:
-
Adopt a justice-centred narrative framing its stance around climate justice and resilience through equity. Its experience as a climate front-line state gives moral authority to demand parity between adaptation and mitigation in global finance and policy.
-
Lead on regional solidarity as part of the Third Pole region to champion a South-South cooperation framework focused on shared challenges, glacier melt, river basin management, and food and water security. Regional diplomacy around climate resilience could become a signature pillar of Pakistan’s foreign policy.
-
Champion the loss and damage agenda for capitalisation — simplified access, grant-based finance and inclusion of local communities in rebuilding and adaptation planning.
-
Invest in science, storytelling, and strategy: negotiations are driven by data and diplomacy. Pakistan should strengthen its climate data infrastructure, empower young negotiators and amplify its stories of resilience, turning lived experiences into global advocacy tools.
-
Forge strategic partnerships: beyond government-to-government engagement, Pakistan can build alliances with global think tanks, civil society, and climate innovators to position itself as a thought leader on adaptation finance and resilience-building.
The journey from Kyoto to Paris, and now towÂards COP30, reveals both progress and paralysis in global climate diplomacy. While the world has learned to talk about climate change with unprecedented urgency, it has yet to act with equal conviction. For Pakistan, participation in COP must transcend attendance. It should be about shaping narratives, mobilising alliances and asserting leadership among the Global South. By focusing its voice on justice, adaptation, and regional solidarity, Pakistan can not only safeguard its national interests but also contribute meaningfully to a fairer and more resilient global climate order.
The writer is chief executive of the Civil Society Coalition for Climate Change.
Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2025
