Rethinking ‘representation’ for a meaningful COP30

Frustration over the slow progress made during COP29 negotiations in Baku is hardly new. History has repeatedly shown us that the politics of climate change and the forces of nature rarely align. Adding to this challenge is the absence of a unified global authority to address the urgency of the issue. There is no world government or state to act on behalf of the planet. Compounding this challenge is the lack of a universal metric system capable of reconciling the diverse political, economic, and social interests of nation-states. While the jury is still out on whether COP29 was a “disappointment”, “failure”, or “disaster”, critics have often pointed out that ‘business as usual’ does not work. As Brazil prepares to host COP30 in Belém next year, here is an alternative suggestion on the concept of ‘representation’ for them.

This innovative methodology was pioneered by Bruno Latour, Emeritus Professor at Sciences Po, and Laurence Tubiana, France’s Climate Change Ambassador and Special Representative for the 2015 COP21 in Paris. In the lead-up to COP21, in May 2015, there was a week-long public event, hosted by Sciences Po, called the ‘Theatre of Negotiations’ at Nanterre-Amandiers on the outskirts of Paris. This experiment brought together 200 students from 143 universities worldwide to role play and reimagine a life-sized COP. The goal of this bold pedagogical initiative was to transform the traditional framework of climate negotiations. At its core was a radical rethinking of ‘representation’.

As Irish author Sally Rooney writes, “When American colonists famously rebelled against the practice of ‘taxation without representation,’ [how] is environmental devastation without representation any different? Even if carbon emissions were thoroughly democratically determined — which they are not — why should voters in the world’s richest countries have the right to poison the air, sea, soil, and rivers for the entire population of Earth?” People living on Polynesian islands or in Africa have no right to vote in American or European elections. Yet, they often bear the brunt of the resulting environmental damage.

Granting equal rights

In the approach to representation, humans and non-humans — such as the atmosphere, oceans, and soil — were granted equal rights in negotiations. The idea was to give voice and agency to these non-human entities, allowing them to express their stakes in climate negotiations. Unlike conventional COP meetings, this assembly did not defer to the authority of science or nature, as these too were subjects of negotiation. The aim was to simulate a truly inclusive and representative process.

The theatre setting at Nanterre-Amandiers encouraged dynamic and creative reinterpretations of negotiation. Delegates dramatised and de-dramatised issues, explored alternative spatial-temporal perspectives, and allowed non-speaking entities to ‘represent’ or ‘speak’ through proxies. This flexibility opened new avenues for addressing climate challenges, from reframing territorial sovereignty to dramatising the interdependence of ecosystems and nations. For example, the ‘Ocean’ imposed conditions on the ‘United States,’ while the ‘Atmosphere’ directly addressed ‘China’ regarding greenhouse gas emissions. These novel interactions forced participants to reconsider the boundaries of sovereignty and territorial responsibility. This writer, who was a part of the Philippines delegation, represented a civil society organisation, voicing the concerns of indigenous, rural, and coastal communities. Each delegation comprised a diverse mix of actors — state and non-state representatives, scientists, business leaders, and civil society members — thus ensuring a broad range of perspectives.

The week-long simulation yielded profound insights. For delegates, it underscored the critical need for clear communication of interests, values, and territorial concerns. For organisers, it highlighted the logistical and resource mobilisation challenges required to facilitate a process of this scale. For students, it revealed alternative pathways for advancing the climate agenda, recognising the limitations of existing negotiation frameworks. As simulators, we achieved our goal of creating a dynamic, inclusive, and scientifically informed pedagogical tool for climate action.

One could argue that the prevailing global governance system does not allow for such ‘representation’, or critique it from an anthropocentric point of view. While there are gaps in the existing legal-cum-institutional framework to govern and/or implement rights, the recurrent tendency to give representation of non-humans via courts (in the case of India, Pakistan), parliament (Ecuador, New Zealand) or other institutions (Canada) is to only enlarge its legal and political agency. Such tendency stems from the fact that non-humans are ‘interest bearers’ having moral standing and deserving political and legal representation.

There needs to be transparency

So, if future COPs are to achieve meaningful outcomes, honest representation and actionable commitments must be paired with a transparency of intentions. Hosting COPs in economies which are heavily reliant on oil, sends mixed signals, particularly when the host nation simultaneously promotes investment in state-run oil and gas enterprises. Such contradictions erode trust and undermine genuine progress.

It would be a significant step forward if COP30, held in Belém, the heart of the Amazon, gave representation to the ‘Amazon’ as an entity, exploring what possibilities this opens up. Bridging the gap between ambition and action requires not just new negotiation methods but also a willingness to align policies with the values we collectively champion. Let us hope we are not sleepwalking through the Anthropocene.

Gaurav Daga is an Associate Vice President at Guidance, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. The views expressed are personal