COP is the supreme decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC is the foundational 1992 climate treaty, which was later strengthened by the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015). Every country that has ratified the climate treaty is a “Party.” Each year, these Parties meet, talk, argue, compromise, and eventually agree on new climate decisions that guide global action.
The Presidency, or host country, rotates every year: Brazil hosted COP30 in 2025, Türkiye along with Australia will co-host COP31, and Ethiopia will host COP32. The Presidency sets the agenda, leads negotiations, and acts as a mediator.
Even though the COP takes place in person over two weeks, it’s not just a two-week event; it’s the culmination of a year-long process. Two Subsidiary Bodies (SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice) and SBI (Subsidiary Body for Implementation)) meet twice a year to advance negotiations: once at the mid-year intersessional meeting in Bonn, Germany (typically June), and once in conjunction with the COP itself (typically November/December):
- SBSTA – Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice: This is the technical-science arm. It handles Emissions accounting, Reporting guidelines, GHG inventories, Scientific assessments, and Technology frameworks.
- SBI – Subsidiary Body for Implementation: This deals with: Climate finance, Capacity building, Transparency, Administrative matters, and Support for developing countries.
At COP, each participating country sends a delegation to negotiate on its behalf. These delegations typically include lead negotiators (often senior diplomats or ministry officials), technical experts (scientists, economists, legal advisors), and sometimes ministers or heads of state for high-level segments. These representatives work line-by-line on draft negotiation texts, proposing changes, removing language, and trying to reach consensus on the final wording that becomes official UN climate decisions.
To understand how this works, look at an actual draft text from COP29 negotiations on National Adaptation Plans, dated November 19, 2024, at 5:15 PM:
ACKNOWLEDGING THE SIGNIFICANT [GAP IN] [GAP AND NEEDS] [NEED FOR] [INCREASED] ADAPTATION FINANCE, [TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND CAPACITY-BUILDING [IN PARTICULAR FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES [FOR THE] TOWARDS FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS FROM DEVELOPED COUNTRIES]]
This draft decision (labeled as "Draft decision -/CP.29") recalls previous COP decisions dating back to COP16 in 2010 and builds on the work done over more than a decade of climate negotiations. But even after all that time, the multiple square brackets show that countries are still debating fundamental questions: Is there a "gap" or a "need"? Should it be "increased" finance or just acknowledge the gap? And the nested brackets within brackets show even deeper disagreements about whether to include language on technology transfer and capacity-building specifically for developing countries.
Looks messy, doesn’t it? This is what the draft version looks like. The square brackets show disagreements. It could be specific words, phrases, or entire paragraphs that countries have not yet agreed upon. Negotiators use different types of brackets and annotations to track their positions.
- Square brackets [ ] indicate text that some countries want to keep but others want to remove or change.
- "Shall" means a legally binding obligation; countries must do something.
- "Should" is a recommendation with some flexibility; countries are expected to do it, but it's not legally required.
- "May" is optional; countries have full discretion.
You can find all official UNFCCC texts here: UNFCCC Docs
Final documents usually appear as FCCC/CP/2024/L.xx , Non-papers (informal drafts, e.g., IN.SBI 61.i9_SBSTA61.i9.1), or INF (information documents, e.g., FCCC/SBI/2025/INF.13).
Consultation rooms are typically led by one or two co-facilitators, often balanced between developed and developing countries to ensure fair representation. Draft text under discussion is projected on the screen for all negotiators to see and propose changes to.
For example, the picture to the left shows a draft decision displayed during a Presidency Consultation on the enhanced engagement of local communities in the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP).
In consultations like these, negotiators propose deletion, additions, or edits to draft texts. For example, the picture to the right shows a working draft where Parties were trying to reach consensus on whether to include the term “social inclusion” or list each vulnerable group separately.
This whole process can be extremely slow. Sometimes 30 minutes or even hours go into deciding on a single verb, a comma placement, or the right word.
After listening to every party, the co-facilitators produce updated drafts and send it back to the presidency. When the group can’t agree, the Presidency steps in to solve the issue by holding bilateral meetings, creating a “Friends of the Presidency” group, or working overnight to produce a President’s text, which is essentially, “Here is the best compromise we could find. Please don’t reopen it.”
Then the Presidency calls a plenary, where parties come together to say:
“We can live with this text.” / “We cannot accept paragraph 17.” / “We want to reopen discussions.”
Some issues take years for countries to come to a consensus, for example:
- Article 6 (rules for international carbon markets) took six years to finalize after the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015.
- Loss & Damage (financial support for climate impacts in vulnerable countries) took 20+ years before countries agreed to establish a dedicated fund at COP27.
- The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) (a framework for scaling up adaptation efforts worldwide) took two years of intense drafting before being adopted at COP28.
Negotiations often go all night during the final 48 hours of COP, with negotiators surviving on coffee and adrenaline as they race to finalize text before the closing plenary.
If too many countries reopen paragraphs, the entire text needs to go back to the consultation stage. Sometimes, if one or two countries object, the negotiators may break into smaller “huddles” (or informal consultations) to try to find compromises and resolve outstanding issues before returning to the whole group.
Watching the negotiations, the most interesting thing for me was that COP works by consensus, not by voting, which means every country, all 190+ of them, must agree. Imagine 10 of your friends trying to decide on one place to eat dinner, and the final choice has to be made by consensus. This is why COP outcomes can often feel vague. Strong statements often get watered down because everyone must agree. Here is how it works:
- No objections → BANG! Decision adopted
- One objection → Text fails or gets sent back for more negotiation
Even a single country can block a decision, which is why negotiators spend so much time carefully crafting language that every Party can accept.
Country representatives obviously get a say in negotiations. But delegations don't negotiate in isolation. Instead, they form groups and blocs to amplify their negotiating power. They do this by coordinating positions with other countries that share similar interests or vulnerabilities; these blocs can then speak with a stronger, unified voice. You'll often hear names such as:
- The G77 and China: a major group of 134 developing countries
- Africa Group: represents African nations (54 Countries)
- Least Developed Countries (LDCs) (47 countries)
- Small Island Developing States (SIDS): nations that are most vulnerable to sea-level rise (57 countries)
- AILAC: The Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (8 countries)
- The European Union: negotiates as a single bloc; LMDC, Umbrella Group, EIG, etc.
However, it's not just countries that are represented at the COP. There are also official "constituencies" for non-government groups, like environmental and business associations, indigenous peoples groups, etc., who observe and try to influence the talks.
At COP, you’ll find official constituencies such as YOUNGO (youth), ENGO (environmental NGOs), RINGO (researchers), BINGO (business), WGC (women and gender), IPO (Indigenous peoples), TUNGO (trade unions), LGMAs (local governments), and Farmers.
Besides NGO constituencies, observer status can also be granted to intergovernmental organizations, research institutes, universities, and other non-profit bodies. Once admitted, these observers can send delegates and receive badges, allowing them to attend sessions, hold side events or exhibits, provide expert input or statements, and follow the negotiations, though they do not negotiate directly.
COP consists of multiple zones.
Blue Zone: This is the formal, official space managed by UNFCCC. Only accredited delegates (countries’ negotiating teams, observer organizations, media, and some heads of state) can enter. Inside the Blue Zone you’ll find:
- Plenary halls for major sessions, opening/closing, and high-level segments
- Negotiation rooms, or smaller meeting rooms, for line-by-line text negotiations, contact groups, and working groups
- Delegation offices/bilateral meeting rooms for government delegations to meet, coordinate, and hold private bilateral or multilateral talks
- Pavilions for Parties or other accredited stakeholders (countries, UN agencies, NGOs, institutions) to showcase their climate-action plans and host events, briefings, side-meetings, etc.
- Side events and informal events/panels organized by NGOs, UN bodies, and delegations
- Media/press facilities for accredited journalists covering negotiations
It’s messy and political because:
- Too many issues, too many countries: There are nearly 200 Parties at COP with very different priorities.
- Consensus rule: Even one country can block a decision.
- Power dynamics imbalance: Richer countries bring large delegations; poorer ones may have 2–3 negotiators for dozens of simultaneous meetings.
- Climate change is a political, economic, scientific, and ethical problem all at once. Because of this, even scientifically “obvious” issues become politically charged.
COP decisions have real consequences.
They can shape:
- Climate decision taken by a country
- How much climate finance vulnerable countries receive
- Whether adaptation and loss & damage receive priority
- What support Indigenous peoples, women, youth, and marginalized communities receive
- How equitable and just global climate action will be
Because the system is slow, political, and imbalanced, justice-centered issues, such as compensation, equity, social protection, and community resilience, often struggle to get strong language. But civil society (youth, NGOs, women’s groups, Indigenous groups, and researchers) play an essential role in pushing the narrative, influencing Parties, and demanding accountability.
If you ask me this, my answer would be the "PEOPLE’S PLENARY." I can still feel the goosebumps I had while sitting in that room.
Peoples Plenary brought together activists, NGOs, grassroots organizations, youth groups, indigenous peoples, workers, and other civil society actors inside the COP venue to raise demands, share real-life experiences, and push for climate justice. It was a very powerful space, bringing lived realities into the climate conversation, pushing for equity, justice, and rights.