Getting started – adopting the agenda

Setting the agenda is fundamental to the successful organisation and completion of work of any meeting. It is literally the list of things that are to be done. Adopting the agenda is therefore one of the first things that any meeting must do since it decides the issues to address, provides the framework to organise work, and then serves as the basis for the meeting to adopt its decisions at its closing.

Parties may have disagreements at the opening of a conference on which issues should, or should not, be included in the agenda. “Agenda fights” are often seen as a distraction from the real work – discussions on the agenda can eat up a great deal of time of the presidency, the chairs and the parties, may delay the opening, and discussions may even continue throughout the session with consequences for the time available for substantive work. However, differences on the agenda generally arise from underlying differences on substance and the relative priority that parties give to different topics: indeed, parties may use the adoption of the agenda as a platform to communicate their views on these matters. They also arise from the need to reconcile different interpretations of past decisions. Sometimes, the addition of a new agenda item can be the basis for a major decision, as was the case with the inclusion of an agenda item on funding for loss and damage in Sharm el-Sheikh. So, whilst resolving agenda differences may take time, it is often the prerequisite to making progress on the substance.[1]

Since disagreements on the agenda are not going to just go away, it is important for a presidency or a chair to be well-prepared to resolve them, but also ready to take advantage of the insights that they provide on parties’ underlying areas of concern. This note attempts an overview of how the agendas of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, the Convention) are prepared and agreed, some of the challenges that can arise, examples of the tools that have been used to try to resolve them, and some thoughts on how the process might be improved in the future.

The agendas of the other governing bodies, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) and the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA), are prepared in an identical manner to that of the COP and the same rules apply to the preparation of the agendas of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI). For simplicity, the rest of this note refers to the COP but, unless otherwise noted, it applies, mutatis mutandis, to the other governing bodies and to the subsidiary bodies.

?

1.????? Preparing the provisional agenda

The provisional agenda of the COP is prepared by the executive secretary and has to be circulated at least six weeks ahead of the opening of the session, in line with the draft rules of procedure. The executive secretary acts in agreement with the COP president: this refers to the current COP president, but in practice this requires the incoming COP presidency to take an active role since they will be the ones overseeing the adoption process. In the case of the subsidiary bodies, the secretariat acts in agreement with the respective chairs of the subsidiary bodies, and items to include in their agendas may have been mandated by previous decisions of the COP, CMP or CMA. Earlier in the year, the secretariat consults the bureau of the COP on possible elements of the COP, CMP and CMA agendas and then provides initial drafts to SBI for examination under its agenda item on arrangements for intergovernmental meetings at its June session. Views expressed by parties at that session may already indicate whether there are likely to be proposals for further items or other problems with the agendas of the governing bodies later in the year.

The draft rules of procedure define items that are to be included in the provisional agenda.[2] These include:

• Certain items mandated directly by the Convention, as well as the budget.
• Items mandated by past decisions of the COP.
• Items that had not been completed by the previous session in application of rule 16 of the draft rules of procedure.[3]
• Any items proposed by parties and received by the secretariat before the provisional agenda is circulated.

Should further proposals be received by the secretariat after circulation of the provisional agenda, but before the opening of the session, it must circulate a supplementary provisional agenda including those items. There may even be several supplementary provisional agendas, and it is the latest one that will be considered by the COP at its opening session.

The secretariat has no discretion to pick and choose among the items proposed by parties. In some cases, it may be helpful for the secretariat to check with the proponent before issuing the provisional agenda (or a supplementary provisional agenda) to ensure that it has fully understood the proposal, and such exchanges may lead to a party deciding to modify its proposal so as to remove ambiguity or to ensure greater clarity or consistency with existing agenda items. However, if a party insists on the inclusion of its proposal in the provisional agenda, the decision is theirs, even if the drafting is unclear.

The secretariat may sometimes alter the structure of the provisional agenda from that of the previous session – for example, by grouping related items to provide greater clarity for parties and make it easier to organise work, especially where new items have been introduced by mandates from the previous COP. However, any such alterations to the structure cannot modify the content of the agenda – all the issues that have to be present, must be present.

Specific rules apply to proposals for amendments to the Convention (or to the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreement). Any proposal for an amendment must be received by the secretariat in time to allow it to be circulated to all parties at least six months prior to the opening of the session. So, irrespective of whether parties are likely to want to engage on the proposed amendment, a proposal for an amendment can only be included in the provisional agenda if it had already respected the requirement to be circulated six months in advance.

2.????? Challenges to adopting the agenda

The provisional agenda (or supplementary provisional agenda) is a draft, a list of all the items that must be included, including any proposals received from parties. It is for parties, however, not the secretariat, nor the presidency, to decide what work will be undertaken. So, the agenda has to be approved by the COP at its opening, either as presented, or with modifications – the COP can decide to add, delete, defer or amend items. In the absence of a voting rule, that means that the agenda must be adopted by consensus.[4] If all goes well, the provisional agenda will be accepted by all parties without challenges or debate, the president can gavel its adoption and proceed to the organisation of work. If that is the case, the rest of this note can be ignored. However, that does not always happen, there may be disagreements that delay adoption and require consultations to find a way forward and identify any amendments or other changes to the provisional agenda that may be needed so that it can be finalised and adopted, and the organisation of work can proceed.

The most frequent disagreements concern items proposed by parties that other parties are not willing to include in the agenda. Some examples from the past year: in June 2023 the EU’s proposal to include an item on the mitigation work programme on the SBSTA58 and SBI58 agendas was rejected by many other parties that considered that the mandate was to include the item only at the following session, not in June; ahead of COP28 in Dubai there were nine distinct proposals to include new items on the agendas of the governing and subsidiary bodies, some of which would have figured on the agenda of more than one body, none of which enjoyed consensus support; and in Bonn in June 2024, Bolivia’s proposal for an item on the SBSTA60 and SBI60 agendas on action by developed countries to achieve net zero emissions by 2030 also failed to achieve consensus.

Problems may also arise from the way the secretariat, in agreement with the presidency, has interpreted mandates from previous decisions, in particular where there was ambiguity or a lack of clarity in the original mandates. This happened in June 2019 when a party objected to the inclusion on the SBSTA50 agenda of a new agenda item on the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5°C, arguing that the mandate from COP24 had been to consider the report, that there was no explicit mandate for a new agenda item, and that this could be done under the existing agenda item on research and systematic observation. Another example was in Dubai when some parties objected to the inclusion of an item on the CMA5 agenda on understanding article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement and its relation to article 9.

?

3.????? Consulting ahead of opening to head off an agenda fight in plenary

The incoming COP presidency, usually in conjunction with the current presidency, will undertake consultations with groups and concerned parties, including the proponents of any new agenda items, ahead of the opening of the conference to identify if there are likely to be problems adopting the agendas, and if so to identify what would be needed to achieve a common understanding so as to overcome any objections and get work underway smoothly. Such consultations may be organised through a series of bilateral meetings, in a multilateral setting, or by making use of both settings. The subsidiary body chairs will likewise consult on their agendas ahead of the session – both in June, when they act on their own, and in the November/December session when they may need to coordinate with the COP presidency should there be concerns about items that figure on the agendas of both the governing and the subsidiary bodies. Where the proposals concern items to be included in both the SBSTA and the SBI agendas, the chairs will need to coordinate their consultations.

The week before the opening of the session is a critical moment as parties begin their coordination meetings during the pre-sessional week. Some problems with the provisional agenda may only be identified at that moment, there may even be late proposals for new agenda items that are made only following those initial coordination meetings. It is above all the moment for the presidency to be holding consultations and actively exploring solutions.

When preparing the COP, there are good arguments for beginning consultations with negotiating groups and parties on possible agenda problems even before the pre-sessional week, taking advantage of other events held ahead of the COP, such as consultations in the margins of the pre-COP, or through on-line meetings in the weeks ahead of the conference. The aim is to ensure that there are no surprises at the last minute and that there is time to find solutions ahead of the opening plenary.

Depending on the number and the complexity of the proposals for the agendas, considerable effort may be required to reach agreement ahead of the opening of the session:

• Consultations on adopting the agendas at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh began ahead of the conference but were only resolved in the early hours of the morning that the COP was due to open.
• Many hours of consultations were held ahead of COP28 in the UAE to ensure agreement on all the agendas, involving two full rounds of on-line consultations with groups and parties in the weeks before the conference, intensive bilateral outreach in the days before opening, and two heads of delegation meetings in the pre-sessional week, getting agreement in the afternoon before the opening plenary.

Sometimes it is not possible to find full agreement before the opening plenaries:

• Several issues related to the agenda had not been fully resolved before the opening plenary of COP25 in Madrid in 2019, requiring exchanges between the president and interested parties in the plenary to reach agreement on the way forward. Going into the opening plenary without prior agreement on the way to handle matters may have risks for the credibility of the process and affect trust in the president.
• In June 2023, at SBSTA58 and SBI58 in Bonn, there was no agreement on agendas at the opening of the session, and the chairs undertook consultations that reached agreement only on the penultimate day of the session. Parties did, however, agree at the opening of the session that work could get under way on the basis of the provisional agendas, so substantive work was able to advance in parallel with the consultations on the agendas. As a result, results were ready to be adopted on the final day, however uncertainty hung over the possibility to conclude the negotiation process until the agendas were finally resolved.
• In an extreme case, in June 2013, SBI38 was not only unable to agree its agenda, but there was no agreement either to begin work on the basis of the provisional agenda. As a result, the entire session of SBI was lost. (Other bodies were not affected and were able to adopt their agendas and make progress on their work, including work under SBSTA on joint items with SBI despite the absence of work under SBI at that session.)

4.????? Approaches that can be explored to try to resolve divergences on the agenda

The elements that follow are not exhaustive but illustrate some of the tools that the presidency may consider using to try to enable the agenda to be adopted and to get work under way. All depend on preparing the ground before the opening – consulting groups and parties in the week, or even weeks, ahead of the conference to identify what the problems may be, and to explore options such as those set out below to overcome them. They are not necessarily alternatives, some could be combined. If there are several issues to be resolved, there may not be a single approach that resolves them all.

?

Check that everyone understands the proposal

Disagreements may arise from a simple misunderstanding of a proposal, and clarification may enable a party to lift its objections. Of course, it is more likely that there is an underlying problem that remains to be resolved but ensuring that everyone has a clear understanding of what is being proposed is a good starting point for any consultation, even if it may not suffice to resolve the problem.

?

Adjust the wording of a proposal

Disagreements on the provisional agenda often start as a binary choice between including a proposed item or not, but the discussion on possible ways forward may then turn to exploring options to modify the drafting of the proposal. For example, parties may be willing to accept an agenda item if the drafting is clarified to ensure that the scope of the item is very precise to avoid a broader discussion that might introduce topics they do not wish to address.

Sometimes, the inclusion of a footnote can help get acceptance, for example to provide reassurance that inclusion of the item is without prejudice to other decisions – that is the approach taken for the past few years for the item on the Warsaw International Mechanism on both the COP and the CMA agenda given the unresolved discussion on its governance. Agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh on including the item on funding for loss and damage on the COP and CMA agendas included both a change to the wording and the inclusion of a footnote.

?

Withdraw the proposal

In the face of opposition from many parties, some proponents of a new agenda item will accept to simply withdraw it. This has happened on several occasions. However, parties may still be looking for responses to their underlying concerns in the way that other items will be handled. In some cases, this may also involve political responses to the country’s concerns by the engagement of other parties outside the negotiations.

?

Address the proposal under an existing agenda item

A variant of the previous option involves providing reassurance to the proponent that their underlying issues and concerns can be considered under an existing agenda item or items, even if their proposal is not included in the adopted agenda. This approach was used extensively at COP28 in Dubai where the understanding found with parties provided that the underlying issues associated with seven of the proposed agenda items (six proposed by parties, and one included by the secretariat in line with a past mandate) could be addressed under other identified agenda items across the governing and subsidiary bodies. This approach requires the presidency or the chairs to have a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the agendas for the session to be able to identify the possible entry points to address the contested issues.

?

Exclude from the agenda but pursue consultations on possible ways forward

This approach has often been to overcome a blockage on whether to include an item on the agenda, for example in relation to the proposal to consider the special needs and special circumstances of Africa during several recent conferences. It is important that the terms under which the presidency undertakes consultations are clear to ensure that parties have the same understanding of the possible outcomes. For example, in some cases, it may be decided that the consultations should not address the substance of the original proposal, but only the opportunity to find an agreed way forward, either by find reaching agreement to address it in the agenda of a future session, or to address in some other manner. In other cases, the consultations could also be tasked to address the substance of the original proposal, leaving the door open to finding a substantive outcome at the session.

Although this approach may not produce the results hoped for by the proponent, it can still serve to provide reassurance to parties that their concerns are not going unaired, even when other parties are unwilling to accept the inclusion of a formal agenda item to address their concerns.

?

Agree to limit consideration of item to just one session

The agenda fight at the opening of SBSTA50 in June 2019 on including a new agenda item on the IPCC’s special report on 1.5°C following the mandate from Katowice was resolved by a “gentlepersons’ agreement” among parties that consideration of that particular agenda item would be limited to that one session. That was disappointing to many parties, but it did not hinder them from continuing to refer to and use information from the IPCC special report in subsequent meetings.

This agreement effectively recognised that, even if consideration of the item had not been completed, rule 16 would not apply when preparing the provisional agenda of the following meeting – an application of the final clause of rule 16, “unless otherwise decided by the COP” as applied mutatis mutandis to a subsidiary body.

Rule 16 is important because it limits the ability of parties to block consideration of an issue by simply trying to time-out or filibuster work – there may be no results at that session, but that does not put an end to consideration since the item appear again on the agenda of the following session. Parties are often concerned, however, that accepting a new agenda item on a topic at a session means they are taking the risk that it will become a permanent fixture on the agendas of future sessions, which is not always desirable or intended. As such, getting agreement to limit consideration to a single session may sometimes provide the necessary reassurance to parties to allow the item to be included.

?

Present the understanding on the agenda at moment of adoption

This is not so much an option as a key part of any agreement that is reached. For example, in Dubai, the presidency developed its overall approach to resolving the agenda issues and presented it orally in two heads of delegation meetings, reaching agreement in the second meeting held in the afternoon of the day before the opening of COP28. This understanding was then included in the speaking notes for the COP president at the opening plenary and provided detail on how each issue would be handled – either by addressing the underlying issues and concerns under existing agenda items, or by presidency consultations. The president then proposed to adopt the agenda as amended in line with the understanding that had been read out.[5] The full statement of the understanding was read out during the COP plenary when adopting the COP agenda, but it covered all the issues that had been raised, including those dealt with under the CMP, CMA, SBSTA and SBI. Each of the other governing and subsidiary bodies then referred to the statement made by the president of the COP when adopting their own agenda.

?

Provide space for a party to make a clarifying statement at the moment of the adoption of the agenda.

Whilst the proponent of an agenda item may be willing to accept the adoption of the agenda without the inclusion of their proposal, for example by accepting that the underlying issues be addressed under another agenda item, or that the presidency undertake consultations on the way forward, they may still wish to take the floor at the moment of adoption to highlight their concerns. In some cases, they may request that their intervention be recorded in the report of the session.

?

Work on the basis of the provisional agenda and continue consultations during the session

There may be cases, such as at SB58 in June 2023, when this approach proves to be the only way to get work going. However, starting work on the basis of the provisional agenda is a poor substitute to formally adopting the agenda on the opening day, a fall-back to be used only if other approaches have failed. Beginning work without adopting the agenda creates uncertainty since, were the session to conclude with no agreement on the agenda, no conclusions or decisions could be adopted, and all the work of the session would be lost. Moreover, pursuing consultations on the agenda during the session can take up a great deal of time of the president, the chairs and heads of delegation, time that could be used to overcoming differences on the substance of negotiations.

?

5.???? Some thoughts on possible ways to improve the process in the future

The following ideas are presented purely to stimulate discussion on how we might improve the way we prepare and adopt the agenda of the COP. They no doubt reflect my own biases, many will perhaps prove impracticable, others may come up with other suggestions and find some of these inacceptable.

?

Agree on a voting rule for adopting agendas

Voting on the agenda would provide a simple mechanism to resolve disagreements and to ensure that a meeting could always take a decision on its agenda at the opening. A general voting rule would require finally reaching agreement on the rules of procedure: that remains out of reach. Parties could consider introducing a specific voting rule for agenda adoption: that would constitute a real improvement on the current situation and could usefully be explored. There is no indication, however, that parties would be willing to agree such a change, so it may not happen any time soon.

As a result, the remaining suggestions focus on incremental improvements to the current arrangements that could make a difference without requiring formal changes to the rules of procedure. These are more about developing “best practice” that parties would generally accept to follow, or the secretariat to undertake. In the absence of agreement on the rules of procedure, one option might be to discuss ways to improve the agenda adoption under the standing SBI item on arrangements for intergovernmental meetings. If there were agreement, these could at least be reflected in SBI conclusions and referred to as a reference in subsequent discussions.

?

Limit new items on the subsidiary bodies’ agendas to issues explicitly decided by the governing bodies

The draft rules of procedure were developed for the COP but apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subsidiary bodies as well as to the other governing bodies. As a result, they allow parties to make proposals to include new items directly on the agendas of SBSTA or SBI. However, the subsidiary bodies are, by definition, “subsidiary” to the governing bodies. The respective roles of SBSTA and SBI are defined by articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, rule 27.7 of the draft rules of procedure provides that the COP shall determine the matters to be considered by each subsidiary body with the possibility to adjust the allocation of work between them, and decisions 6/CP.1 and 13/CP.3 were adopted early in the COP process to provide greater guidance on the issues that SBSTA and SBI should address. Over the years, successive decisions of the governing bodies have charged the subsidiary bodies with many more tasks, and those cumulative mandates are the main basis for the contents of the agendas of SBSTA and SBI today.

Parties could agree not to seek to introduce completely new agenda items directly to the agendas of the subsidiary bodies. That would not hinder parties from proposing the introduction of new items when appropriate, but that consideration should not be undertaken by the subsidiary bodies but by the governing bodies – either at the adoption of their agendas (as with the issue of loss and damage finance in 2022) or during substantive negotiations where a new mandate for the subsidiary bodies could be developed and included in the adopted decisions (and that is often how new mandates arise). Such an interpretation would simplify the agenda adoption process at the first session of the year of the subsidiary bodies, enabling the maximum time to be devoted to substantive work during that session, although there might still be issues of interpretation of past mandates from the governing bodies.

?

Avoid duplication of new proposals with existing agenda items

Proposed agenda items sometimes overlap with existing one. For example, the agreement reached at the opening of COP28 recognised that the underlying issues and concerns raised by many of the proposals to include new agenda items could already be dealt with under existing agenda items (although that was facilitated by the exceptionally broad mandate of the first global stocktake). Agendas are already overcharged, so every additional item added to the agenda reduces the time available for all issues to be considered.

This would not stop parties from making proposals, but there could be a presumption that issues should be addressed under existing agenda items unless parties could demonstrate that would not suffice to address their concerns. In the end, everyone would gain from having agendas that are manageable. The aim would be to move the focus from whether a separate agenda item is needed, to ensuring that the underlying issues are properly addressed.

If a party agreed to withdraw its proposal on the grounds that it was not necessary since the underlying issues could be addressed under another agenda item, it might nonetheless indicate a desire to see some modification in the wording of that existing agenda item to ensure that there is no ambiguity, and/or to get clarification from the president at the moment of adopting the agenda that its concerns would be addressed under that existing item.

?

Justify new agenda items as urgent and important

Rule 13 of the draft rules of procedure provides that the COP when adopting the agenda may decide “to add, delete, defer or amend items,” but then further provides that only items that are considered by the COP to be “urgent and important” can be added to the agenda. This can be read as enabling the COP to make changes it decides to the draft agenda on the table for the opening plenary – that is the provisional agenda, or the latest supplementary provisional agenda depending on when proposals had been received from parties. The limitation on “urgent and important” would then apply to any further proposals from the president or from the floor to add additional items at the moment of adoption that had not already been included in the provisional or supplementary provisional agenda.

However, this could also be considered as a general provision requiring all proposals to add items to the agenda, including those proposed by parties and included in the provisional or the supplementary provisional agenda, to be “urgent and important” if they do not derive from existing mandates. This interpretation may not be accepted by everyone, and since there is no definition of “urgent and important” any interpretation would inevitably be a political choice – if the COP accepted to include an additional item, it would be “urgent and “important” in a sort of circular logic. Nonetheless, asking systematically the proponent of a new item in the provisional or the supplementary provisional agenda to demonstrate why their proposal is urgent and important would provide a more informed basis for parties to judge the opportunity to include it in the adopted agenda.

?

Check draft decisions for ambiguity ahead of adoption

A number of challenges arise from the ambiguity of past decisions of the governing bodies on how or when the subsidiary bodies (or possibly a future session of the governing bodies) should take up an issue on their agendas. This might, for example, be about whether the issue should involve a new agenda item (or sub-item) or instead be addressed under an existing agenda item (cf. the discussions at SBSTA50 on the consideration of the IPCC’s special report on 1.5°C). It might be a lack of clarity on the session at which consideration should begin (cf. the discussions on the Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh work programme on the global goal of adaptation at SB56, or the mitigation work programme at SB58). It could also be that the mandate is vague on the scope of work or how the agenda item should be formulated. Such ambiguity may lead to disagreements when parties come to approve the agenda of a future session, since they may have different interpretations of what was intended by the original decision.

It would therefore be interesting to find ways to reduce ambiguity in the first place, that is at the time when the decision of the governing body is being finalised. However, whilst that is easy to say, the final hours of a COP are often a confusing time. Parties, the presidency and the secretariat are often overwhelmed, simply tired, and focused on the main points necessary to get an agreement. There may even be advantages in leaving some ambiguity in the text as a price to pay for agreement, postponing resolution of the different interpretations for a future date This remains an area where practice could be improved – and there was some indication that parties were more alert to this problem when finalising the decisions taken at COP28, making an effort to be precise on the timelines of future work.

One option might be to formalise existing good practice by tasking the secretariat to check draft decisions as they are being finalised and to draw parties’ attention systematically to cases where the lack of clarity might lead to problems at later meetings and to suggest ways to limit that risk. The decision on what language to use would remain with parties, this is not just an editing issue, and sometimes parties will prefer a lack of clarity as a means to paper over their disagreements, but introducing a systematic check might help reduce future risks.

?

Make use of “other matters” and consultations by the presidency or chair

The agenda item “other matters” figures on the agenda of each of the governing and subsidiary bodies. It is little used, perhaps for good reasons.

Parties have sometimes proposed the inclusion of items on the provisional agenda as sub-items under the item “other matters” rather than as new, stand-alone agenda items. Examples include the items on blue carbon and on the rights of nature at SBSTA38, and the proposal from the Democratic Republic of Congo at COP23 on a gateway on the ambition of other entities: there was no consensus on including those issues as sub-items, so they did not figure in the adopted agendas of those sessions.

However, once the agenda has been adopted, it theoretically remains possible for parties to propose that an issue be considered under the item “other matters” at the moment when work is organised on that item. A proposal to address an issue under “other matters” could also be made by the president. Indeed, issues have sometimes been addressed under other matters, for example at COP2 in relation to an invitation from the General Assembly, or at COP5 in relation to work on the establishment of a multilateral consultative process. These issues were not included as sub-items in the agendas, and the outcomes of consultations were reported back to the COP under the “other matters” agenda item. In both cases the proposal to address the issues under “other matters” was flagged ahead of the session in the annotated provisional agendas prepared by the secretariat and proposed from the chair by the president. More recently, consultations held by the presidency in line with the understanding reached on the adoption of the agenda on several issues not included in the adopted agenda have been reported back under “other matters,” for example on the special needs and circumstances of Africa at CMA4 and CMA5 – although these consultations were announced at the moment of the adoption of the agendas and not when organising work under “other matters.”

Making wider use of this agenda item to take up issues not included in the agenda as specific items would entail risks since it could undermine the integrity of the agenda process as the place where parties decide which issues to address at a session and lead to a proliferation of additional issues to address. That would go against the objectives of seeking to strengthen the agenda adoption process.

Despite those risks, there might be some benefits from this approach. Firstly, it would move the risk of challenge from the moment of the adoption of the agenda to that of organisation of work. That would secure the adoption of the agenda which is of the highest priority to enable all work to get under way. Secondly, if a party were to oppose taking up the issue under “other matters” and there was no obvious way forward, then the president could rule that there was no consensus and move on to the next item of business. It is unlikely that parties would overturn the president’s ruling on a point of order and the question would be resolved, at least for that session. Thirdly, since, the issue would be taken up as a result of a decision under the organisation of work, it would only be addressed at that session, unlike an issue included as a specific item or sub-item on the agenda that would automatically be included on the agenda of the following session should consideration not been concluded, in pursuance of rule 16.

To limit the risks highlighted above, there would nonetheless need to be an understanding that there should be “no surprises” and that it would only be acceptable to take up issues under “other matters” in cases where parties had collectively agreed to this approach, probably as part of an understanding reached following consultations on adopting the agenda before the opening of the session.

On balance, it might be wisest not to make use of this approach, but it is included here in case others would like to consider it further.

?

Make use of “safe spaces” to discuss issues without necessarily seeking a formal outcome

There are times that a party may primarily be seeking the opportunity to discuss an issue without necessarily seeking a substantive outcome. In such cases, parties may be satisfied with an arrangement that provides them with a “safe space” for such a conversation or offers a route to creating such a space at future meetings.

There is one possible precedent. Following the blockage of work at SBI38 in 2013, parties agreed later that year at COP19 to include an agenda item on the “decision-making process under the COP.” That provided parties with a space to raise the underlying concerns that had led to the blockage at SBI38, which were in effect about the way the CMP had adopted the Doha Amendment and several related decisions the previous year. Presidencies continued to hold consultations on this matter twice a year for several years after COP19, with an active exchange of views during the first few sessions but no formal outcome. In recent years, examination of this agenda item has been limited to holding formal consultations during the COP session with no active discussion between parties. Whilst the agenda item on the decision-making process never led to any substantive outcomes, it did contribute to calming some of the tensions that arose after the disputed adoption of decisions at COP18/CMP8 and the blockage of SBI38 several months later. Since this item remains on the agenda, it could theoretically serve as a sort of “safety-valve” should tensions rise again around the issues of consensus and decision-making.

It may be interesting to bear this precedent in mind, for example in relation to issues that raise cross-cutting challenges in many negotiation tracks. It is, however, unlikely this approach would be applicable to many issues. The item on decision-making by the COP was exceptional since it was strictly about process, but most issues that divide parties are about substance and, once there is an agenda item, parties will be looking for a substantive conclusion, turning it into just another negotiating space.

That suggests that other approaches, such as presidency-led consultations, may be the more appropriate way to offer a space for parties to exchange on a divisive question during a conference to try to build greater convergence for the future. It is in the outcomes of those consultations that parties may seek ways to formalise such a space, for example by agreeing to create a dialogue or future mandated events to continue the discussion of the issue that may not be addressed under other mandated agenda items.

?

Introduce a programmatic or thematic treatment of issues

Agendas are overcharged even before the inclusion of additional items, leaving limited time to give full attention to all issues. The problem is especially acute for the agendas of the subsidiary bodies where most of the technical work is undertaken, but it is arguably also the case for the many items on finance that are directly handled under the governing bodies.[6] As a result, fewer slots are available for each negotiating group during a session, and those slots have been growing shorter over the years. It is getting harder to find time to schedule meetings on all the items on the agendas in a way that avoids clashes between consideration of related items. Despite being conscient that the process is often struggling, parties continue to feel that not all their priorities are being addressed and that they need to propose the inclusion of new agenda items, adding yet further to the overcharged agenda.

One way to reduce the pressures on the agenda – and so make it less problematic to introduce new items when they are justified – would be to rationalise the organisation of existing work. However, “rationalisation” is not always a neutral term, since parties may interpret it as wanting to focus on their priorities and drop those of others. As a result, past attempts to rationalise the agendas and the organisation of work have made little progress.

It might nonetheless be interesting to take forward the idea of a COP work programme, developing a programmatic approach that would provide for issues to be addressed over several sessions. Some issues would continue to be addressed every time, but others might be taken up less often, for example at every other session, or every two years. That would ensure all issues get the time they need to be addressed, without seeking to address everything at every session.

There are precedents. Already some items are only included on the agenda of one session in the year, like the SBI item on arrangements for intergovernmental meetings that is usually taken up in June. Work under the SBSTA item on research and systematic observation is another example, since the item figures on the agenda of every session, but parties have agreed to focus in the June session on research, and then on observation when they meet during the first week of the COP: that does not remove the flexibility for parties to address urgent issues that may arise, but it does ensure that SBSTA can give better attention to both research and systematic observation, including by staggering mandated events on each topic, than if it tried to address both issues at every session.

There are also cases where a chair has proposed, and parties have agreed, to defer consideration of an item included on the agenda. For example, an agenda item on market and non-market mechanisms under the Convention was included on the agenda of SBSTA50, in line with an earlier mandate, but following consultations by the chair ahead of the session, SBSTA agreed at its opening plenary to postpone consideration to SBSTA52 – and that consideration was then further deferred to SBSTA56 which proposed conclusions to COP26 recommending that the consideration of the matter be concluded. This was done to allow time for negotiations on article 6 of the Paris Agreement to make progress before returning to the issue of the related item under the Convention.

A programmatic approach might be appropriate to better organise some of the work on finance or the overview of the work of some constituted bodies. Items could remain on the agendas, but when organising work parties would agree not to take them all up at that session. Most existing workstreams have developed in a piecemeal manner, with each decision providing for work to be taken forward on a topic, with little consideration of how those fit with other workstreams. For example, many workstreams, constituted bodies and work programmes include provision for a review of their mandates to be held every few years. That is important, but the timing has often not been thought through and there is little coordination between the reviews.

Another option might be to introduce a thematic viewpoint into some work programmes – for example, providing a focus on certain ecosystems or geographical contexts (ocean, mountains, deserts and drylands, …) or regions in the work on mitigation, adaptation, just transition, etc. This might also take account of the regional dimension, for example providing for workshops in the margins of regional climate weeks (which need sustained funding to ensure they take place). This might offer a way to ensure that some of the concerns raised by parties in proposals for new agenda items could be addressed in a more systematic way across existing workstreams.

Moving to a programmatic approach would be complicated and require thorough planning to ensure that it could be applied in a way that was acceptable to all parties. It would be important to ensure this did not lead to reduced scrutiny of some activities. And there would be a need for fall-back arrangements to take up an issue when at a session when it would not otherwise be addressed should that be necessary. It is unlikely in the short-term but could form part of a longer-term restructuring to ensure that the COP and its broader processes and continue to deliver and so could usefully be given further consideration, perhaps informed by work by the secretariat to sketch out how it might work.

?

6.????? Conclusions

There will continue to be legitimate disagreements on which issues should be included or how they should be addressed. The priority is to ensure that the disagreements can be managed to avoid blocking the process and to limit the time necessary to reach agreement. There is no silver bullet, but many tools exist, and there is scope to consider how the process could be improved.

?

?

-----

?

This note reflects my own views and understandings of the UNFCCC process, drawing on my experience as a negotiator, a chair, and as a member of several presidencies, as well as many conversations over the years with those more knowledgeable than me. I am grateful to some wise and experienced friends who provided valuable feedback on a draft of this note. The final version, including any errors, is entirely my personal responsibility and engages none but me. I am happy to hear reactions and to follow up to find ways to improve it. (Contact: [email protected] )

[1] This is an illustration of the maxim of the late Pete Betts, for many years UK and EU chief negotiator, that “in this process, process is substance.”

[2] See section VI Agenda and rules 9 to 16 of the draft rules of procedure for more details.

[3] Rule 16 of the draft rules of procedure provides that, “Any item of the agenda of an ordinary session, consideration of which has not been completed at the session, shall be included automatically in the agenda of the next ordinary session, unless otherwise decided by the Conference of the Parties.” There are regularly items under a governing or subsidiary body that are not concluded and that then continue at the following session. It is probably the rule that is most frequently mentioned by parties.

[4] The draft rules of procedure were submitted to COP1 in 1995 but there was no agreement on voting rules, so they were not formally adopted. A pragmatic solution was found, whereby the COP decides at the start of each session to apply the draft rules of procedure, with the exception of draft article 42 on voting. Consultations over the years have not found any consensus to amend or approve the draft rules of procedure. As a result, there is no general decision-making rule and, with a few specific exceptions, all decisions, including the adoption of the agenda, must be taken by consensus.

[5] The secretariat has on several occasions published a revised agenda after consultations on the agenda were completed and before the opening plenary, excluding or amending certain items on the provisional or supplementary provisional agenda to reflect the understanding. That was not done in Dubai, the president presented the supplementary provisional agenda for adoption, but proposed excluding certain items, clarifying how the underlying issues or concerns related to those excluded items would be addressed.

[6] There were 19 substantive items (excluding procedural items and mandated events but counting sub-items) on the agenda of SBSTA59, and 26 on that of SBI59, of which 10 items were common to SBSTA and SBI. There were 22 items on the SBSTA60 agenda and 24 items on that of SBI60 with 8 joint items. There were 15 items on finance across the governing bodies in Dubai, some addressing related issues, and the understanding found on the adoption of the agendas had recognised that further issues and concerns raised by parties in proposed agenda items could be addressed under some of those agenda items.

Photo credit: IISD/ENB Kiara Worth - closing SBSTA50 in June 2019 (for some reason I could not include this at the top of the note)