In recent years, COP conferences have laid the groundwork for concrete commitments aimed at combating climate change. However, as we observed at the recent COP 27 in Egypt, progress continues to be slow and tentative, with much left to be done. Additionally, at the continental and/or regional level, we are seeing increasing action, whether it’s the European Union or partnerships among countries in North Africa and the Middle East (MENA).

Despite global efforts, it’s intriguing to note that practical action remains geographically localized. We can discuss global actions, yet the actual implementation of these measures occurs at the local level. In this context, the climate governance built over the past decades doesn’t seem to efficiently integrate local perspectives and actions. Therefore, which approach would be more effective and pragmatic – the global one where actions of 195 states need coordination, or the more regional or local one?

The issue of climate change is fundamentally a global one, with varying impacts on all regions of the world. Therefore, it’s not surprising that this problem was addressed as early as 1992 when the United Nations established the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and in 1995, the first Conference of Parties (COP) was held in Berlin.

However, if we delve into the history of these massive conferences, we see that it wasn’t until 2015 in Paris that a consensus was reached on specific targets (such as the maximum 1.5°C limit by 2050). It was only at the 26th conference (COP) in Glasgow that the groundwork for a global fund to finance climate change efforts was established. Over the course of more than 25 years, progress has been slow and, at times, non-existent, while the impact of climate change has become increasingly pronounced (especially evident in temperature records, extreme events, glacial conditions, etc.).

Climate change is not uniform; different regions are affected differently, and short, medium, and long-term strategies and resources are required for mitigation. So, wouldn’t it be more constructive and pragmatic for significant actions to be taken at a regional level while still adhering to the framework of a global plan?

What has been the operating model so far?

Towards the late 1960s, climate change and related policies began to capture the attention of U.S. federal politics and the American electorate. Nixon initiated the Endangered Species Conservation Act in 1969 and later formed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one of the early public institutions of the last century aimed at addressing and implementing various climate policies.

In 1972, the First United Nations Scientific Conference on climate-related topics, also known as the First Earth Summit, took place in Stockholm.

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, but its implementation only began in 2005. This was a significant moment as it operationalized the United Nations’ framework on climate matters by engaging industrialized countries and those in transition economies to limit greenhouse gas emissions according to pre-set individual targets.

Therefore, at the political level, there was at least in Western Europe and North America some political willingness to attempt to address global issues like climate change through global conferences, primarily organized by the United Nations.