Reform preferences of key actors in the UNFCCC process

Abstract

Calls to reform the United Nations Conferences of the Parties (COPs) climate negotiations have intensified, yet systematic empirical evidence on the reform preferences of key participants remains limited. Here, using a conjoint survey experiment involving state and non-state elite respondents comparing pairs of hypothetical reform proposals, we find broad support for reforms that enhance transparency and provide a stronger implementation focus to drive climate action. We see that non-state actors are more supportive of reforms that limit fossil fuel company participation and expand opportunities for observer engagement. Furthermore, most other institutional reform proposals do not draw substantial support. These results identify two possible reform pathways: to strengthen transparency and accountability, or to reorient COPs towards strengthening the implementation of existing commitments. More contested reforms, including changes to the consensus rule, the COP presidency and stakeholder representation, are less likely to succeed. COP meetings have faced criticism and calls for reform, yet evidence on reform choices remains limited. Here a survey of COP participants reveals broad support for enhancing transparency and implementation, while proposals to change consensus rules or the COP presidency are less favoured.