UN Climate Meetings Favour Wealthier Nations, Study Finds

A recent study from the University of Leeds and Lund University reveals that the UN COP climate meetings systematically favour richer and larger countries, disadvantaging smaller and poorer nations. The research, categorising participating countries as radicals, optimists, hypocrites, or evaders, exposes an imbalance in representation and influence.

The annual Conference of the Parties, or "COP," organised by the UN to combat climate change and support vulnerable nations, is under scrutiny. Lina Lefstad, lead author and PhD student at Lund University, asserts, "Our analysis clearly shows that some groups are not heard or represented. The very structure of the COPs makes it almost impossible for smaller countries to voice their interests."

Published in Critical Policy Studies, the study analyses fifteen previous COPs, revealing that economic power translates into influence over negotiation processes. Wealthier nations, capable of sending more delegates to COP, dominate parallel sessions. For instance, at COP15 in 2009, China sent 233 delegates, while Haiti and Chad sent seven and three representatives, respectively.

Lefstad advocates for a change in the structure, proposing a cap on the number of delegates a country can send. The study notes a rising number of delegates from the fossil fuel industry, reaching 636 at COP27 in Egypt, compared to fewer representatives from civil society and indigenous groups.

Jouni Paavola, study co-author and professor at the University of Leeds, emphasises the impact of industry alliances, stating, "While neither the fossil industry nor civil society have voting powers at the COP, this is still a major problem." The fossil fuel industry forms strong alliances with oil-producing countries, influencing decisions to phase out fossil fuels.

The study also reveals four country groups: radicals, optimists, hypocrites, and evaders. Radicals, including small island states and civil society, advocate for innovative climate change mechanisms—opportunists, such as Saudi Arabia and India, frame climate justice around historical responsibility.

Hypocrites, including the EU, Canada, and Norway, acknowledge contributions to climate change but lag in fulfilling promises. Evaders, including the US, resist justice claims, viewing equity as too prescriptive.

Lefstad concludes, "These groupings show how the concept of climate justice is strategically used for countries' own ends. Unless the UN develops a universally agreed response, climate justice will continue to be used as a negotiating tool, not levering real change."