10 years of Paris Agreement: Unpacking Progress of Climate Initiatives

ISSUE BRIEF

Ten Years of Paris Agreement:

A Stocktake of Cooperative Climate Initiatives

07 October, 2025 | International Cooperation

Mohana Bharathi Manimaran, Sumit Prasad and Aanvi Sharma

Suggested Citation: Manimaran, Mohana Bharathi, Sumit Prasad, and Aanvi Sharma. 2025. Ten Years of Paris Agreement: A Stocktake of Cooperative Climate Initiatives. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water.

Download Study

Press Release

Overview

Ten years since the adoption of the Paris Agreement, we see COPs evolving into a platform where formal transgovernmental negotiations coexist with voluntary, multi-actor initiatives. Cooperative climate initiatives are emerging as a defining feature of COPs, with more than 475 initiatives launched, engaging over 40,000 businesses, investors, local governments, and multilateral organisations. While the Paris Agreement has built accountability through mechanisms such as the GST and BTRs, no equivalent framework exists for cooperative initiatives. This absence of systematic tracking has meant that many initiatives capture attention at their launch but fail to demonstrate sustained progress. Bridging this gap, this issue brief analyses over 200 such initiatives and unpacks the landscape of cooperative climate initiatives over the past decade, from the adoption of the Paris Agreement at COP21 in 2015 to COP29 at Baku in 2024.

Key findings

Out of the 203 initiatives, around 5 per cent of the initiatives have accomplished their stated goals. However, over a fifth of all initiatives are either stalled or inactive, with their status indeterminate or no updates since their initial announcements.
Initiatives with robust integration of structural elements such as targets, organisational and monitoring engagements, and budget allocation are showing better progress.
Less than a third of the initiatives focus solely on Global South regions across Africa, Asia, or Latin America—most span multiple regions.
Only about one-fifth of the initiatives include participation from subnational actors. This is despite UNDP noting that 50–80 per cent of mitigation and adaptation action should be subnational.
Developed countries mainly participate in each other’s initiatives, with a lack of balance in participation from other prominent Global South countries. Even in initiatives led by Global South countries, prominent participants were Global North countries.
From the Global South, India has emerged as a significant player, alongside the UAE and Azerbaijan. Despite not hosting a COP in the last decade, India has led eight initiatives and holds a record for mobilising countries in its initiatives, with approximately 47 countries mobilised on average, comparable to the Presidencies’ mobilisation average.

HAVE A QUERY?

Mohana Bharathi Manimaran

Research Analyst

mohana.manimaran@ceew.in

"The true test of cooperative climate initiatives lies not in their proliferation, but in their persistence. While the Paris Agreement provided the scaffolding for collective ambition, the coming decade must focus on accountability—transforming coalitions into credible instruments of delivery, where every pledge is measurable, inclusive, and capable of driving tangible transformation, particularly for communities across the Global South.”

Executive summary

The 30^th Conference of Parties (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, signals a critical inflexion point in global climate diplomacy. Marking the 10^th year of the adoption of the Paris Agreement, it is the first COP to be convened after a full turn of the Paris Agreement’s ambition cycle.

Over this last decade, cooperative climate initiatives have consolidated into a prominent feature at COPs, alongside the formal negotiations on states’ commitments in the form of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and other COP processes. Between 2015 and 2025, more than 475 such initiatives were launched, engaging over 40,000 businesses, investors, local governments, and multilateral organisations (de Moraes 2025). These initiative-related announcements during COPs often overshadow formal negotiation outcomes, gain tremendous traction, and are increasingly viewed as a major pillar of global efforts to address the challenges of climate change.

Despite the third updated iteration of NDCs1 by countries, and the surge in cooperative initiatives, the current interventions have put the world on course for a temperature increase of 2.6–3.1°C over the course of this century (UNEP 2024). Clearly, the urgency for effective collaborative action has never been greater. Mechanisms like the Global Stocktake, alongside Biennial Transparency Reports (BTR) and the BTR review processes, are attempting to ensure monitoring and progress-tracking of commitments made directly under the Paris Agreement, and listed on the COP agenda, to varying degrees of success. However, any comprehensive progress-tracking of the parallel cooperative initiatives and pledges made by countries and various other actors at the COPs is yet to emerge. While some initial attempts towards this have offered useful insights, these efforts have been limited in their scope, covering specific actors focused on mitigation, without offering overarching insights that could inform the future structuring of climate initiatives.

This issue brief systematically unpacks the landscape of cooperative climate initiatives, and sheds light on the trends, coalitions, structural elements, and factors affecting their progress over the past decade, i.e., since the adoption of the Paris Agreement at COP21 in 2015, to COP29 at Baku in 2024. The brief examines 203 of the 475+ such initiatives with national governments as key actors, including in leadership (the full list of initiatives can be found in the Annexure).

Key findings

Unpacking cooperative climate initiatives: A decadal snapshot

Fewer than one in three initiatives focus solely on Africa, Asia, or Latin America—most span multiple regions or are often clubbed with countries in the Global North.
Only about one-fifth of the initiatives include participation from subnational actors. This is despite UNDP noting that 50–80 per cent of mitigation and adaptation action should be subnational (UNDP 2009). Similarly, engagement of multilateral development banks (MDBs) and investors is also on the lower end (around one-third of all initiatives), despite the universal calls for their catalysing role in mobilising finance for climate action.
Initiatives focused on the means of implementation (finance, technology and capacity building) have become prominent since COP25, but the thematic target areas for about a third of these initiatives remain unclear. Otherwise, initiatives are primarily focused on mitigation, with only a few focused-on adaptation (21 per cent), and negligible focus on Loss and Damage.
Since COP21, the initiatives show a trend of continuous increase (see figure ES1) – the rise is notable and sustained from COP25 in Madrid. COP28, hosted by the UAE, showcased the largest number of initiatives (46).

Box ESI. What are cooperative climate initiatives?

Cooperative climate initiatives are voluntary, multi-actor collaborations that bring together governments, international organisations, and non-state actors to accelerate climate action. They complement transgovernmental climate change efforts under COP negotiations, by fostering partnerships, mobilising resources, and advancing solutions that go beyond individual countries. Notable examples include the International Solar Alliance (ISA), Cool Coalition, the Clean Air Initiative, and the Leadership Group for Industry Transition (LEAD-IT).

Figure ES1. Cooperative initiatives show an increasing trend over the last decade

The current status-quo of cooperative initiatives

Out of the 203 initiatives assessed over the last decade, around 5 per cent of the initiatives have accomplished their stated goals, while 39 per cent of initiatives show continuous engagement. Given the long timeframes required to achieve goals, showing continuous engagement with periodical target updates is a considerable measure of an initiative’s progress.

Over a fifth of all initiatives are either stalled or inactive wherein their status is indeterminate, or there have been no updates since their initial announcements.
About a third (32 per cent) of the initiatives show ad hoc engagement—i.e., sporadic updates, and no evidence of progress, despite some resource allocation and activity.

Concomitantly, our analysis also shows that all initiatives have stated goals, but nearly 53 per cent of the initiatives do not have a clearly defined target. Further, while around 53–55 per cent of initiatives have organisational and monitoring arrangements, barely 28 per cent have a budgetary allocation for their functioning.

Reading the two analysis together, we find that initiatives with robust integration of structural elements such as targets, organisational and monitoring engagements, and budget allocation are showing better progress. In fact, most initiatives that have accomplished their goals started with clear targets. Similarly, initiatives with continuous progress generally have organisational and monitoring arrangements, unlike the stalled initiatives.

Figure ES2. Global North leads in collaborations, even in initiatives led by Global South

Mapping coalitions: The leaders and their partners

COP Presidencies mobilise more than one and a half times as much country participation on average, compared to other countries, highlighting the critical role of the Presidency as a key orchestrator of transgovernmental climate action.
Concomitantly therefore, countries that have hosted COPs have led the most initiatives, with the United Kingdom with 33 and the UAE with 18 at the top (UAE also hosted the largest COP, in 2023).
Developed countries mainly participate in each other’s initiatives, with a lack of balance in participation from other prominent Global South countries. Even in initiatives led by Global South countries, prominent participants were Global North countries (see figure ES2).
From the Global South, India has emerged as an important player along with the UAE and Azerbaijan. Despite not hosting a COP in the last decade, India has led 8 initiatives and holds a record mobilisation of countries in its initiatives, with about 47 countries mobilised on average—at par with the Presidency’s mobilisation average.

Shaping the future cooperative climate actions: Key recommendations

COP Presidencies must catalyse, elevate, and drive such cooperative initiatives: With their mobilising potential, they hold a unique position to catalyse ambitious coalitions, align regional priorities, and ensure continuity of action. Mechanisms like the Circle of Presidencies and the Troika must be leveraged to institutionalise this role and embed coherence across COP cycles.
Initiative actors must ensure robust integration of structural elements that are essential for delivery: While engagements have been fostered and alliances forged, most cooperative initiatives will achieve their stated goals only with robust structures for target setting, organisation and monitoring. To start with, initiative actors should proactively share updates at regular intervals on the progress made to the Global Climate Action Portal (GCAP), which could then serve not just as a repository, but also as a monitoring platform for these initiatives.
Cooperative initiatives should engage more frequently throughout the year and bring oftenneglected aspects to the mainstream: This will allow them to break away from the COPs’ cyclical nature and Presidency priorities, while allowing them to further the objectives of the Paris Agreement through sustained momentum and continuity of action. The scope of initiatives should not only be dominated by mitigation aspects, but also sensitively prioritise neglected areas such as adaptation, loss and damage, incorporating context specific requirements.
Initiatives need to leverage the power of SouthSouth cooperation: Global South countries face similar challenges and constraints, and can learn from each other’s experiences. But currently, less than a third of all initiatives are exclusively aimed at resolving the issues of Global South regions. This presents an opportunity for the Global South to make impactful, smaller, regionand issue-specific initiatives, rather than catch-all larger multilateral groupings.

Introduction

The annual Conference of the Parties (COPs) convened by the UNFCCC has, over the last ten years, evolved from a forum for negotiation to serving as an international platform for various stakeholders to collaborate and form coalitions, exchange knowledge and best practices, and shape bilateral and multilateral diplomacy.

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement at COP21 in 2015, alongside the official COP agenda, cooperative climate initiatives have emerged as an increasingly prominent feature of the COP process. These initiatives are voluntary, multi-actor collaborations designed to foster intergovernmental partnerships, and catalyse climate action that extends beyond the capacities of individual governments.

Between 2015 and 2025, more than 475 such initiatives have been launched, engaging over 40,000 national and subnational government entities, intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), multilateral development banks (MDBs), private investors, industry, and NGOs (de Moraes 2025). These initiatives span sectors such as energy, transportation, finance, environmental conservation, and adaptation. By bringing together diverse actors and sectors, these initiatives embody the spirit of orchestration, and provide an opportunity to demonstrate ambition, leadership, and innovation, without the constraints of the negotiation process.

More recently, these initiative-related announcements by the Presidency and other key actors have begun to overshadow formal negotiation outcomes. They gain tremendous traction and are increasingly viewed as a key pillar of global efforts to broaden the base of actors involved in addressing the challenges of climate change. Notably, the Global Climate Action Agenda was framed as the ‘fourth pillar’ of the Paris Agreement, alongside national pledges, the financing package, and the negotiated agreement (Kuyper, Linnér and Schroeder 2018).

While the Global Stocktake process, alongside Biennial Transparency Reports and BTR review processes, are aimed at monitoring and tracking the progress of commitments made within the Paris Agreement and listed on the COP agenda, there is no comprehensive process or platform to track the progress of these parallel initiatives and pledges. Without appropriate measurability and accountability, much of the progress promised by these initiatives remains far from reach. Efforts in this direction, particularly in tracking the progress of initiatives, have been reflected in the literature. These include analyses of non-state actor led initiatives (Chan, Falkner, et al. 2015), examining the determinants of effectiveness in mitigationoriented initiatives (Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2017), and the more recent assessment of the progress of intergovernmental initiatives in reducing emissions (Forner and Diaz 2023). While these offer useful insights, they are limited by their scopes covering specific actors or focus areas, and do not offer overarching findings that can inform the structuring and efficacy of climate initiatives.

Building on this line of research, this issue brief systematically unpacks the evolving landscape of cooperative climate initiatives over the past decade from 2015, i.e., COP21 in Paris, to 2024, i.e., COP29 at Baku. It also sheds light on the trends, structural elements, and factors affecting their progress. Out of the 475+ initiatives that have emerged over these years, this issue brief examines 203 initiatives that have national governments as a key actor in leadership or participation, and analyses data from the literature review of key information sources such as the COP Presidency portal, websites corresponding to the respective initiatives, the Global Climate Action Portal (GCAP) compilation, and the annual yearbooks of the Highlevel Champions.

Unpacking cooperative climate initiatives: A decadal snapshot

Over the past decade, international climate action has evolved into a symbiotic process that splices intergovernmental processes, i.e., those furthered within the COP agenda, with transnational cooperative initiatives, i.e., those fostered by the Parties to the Convention, and nonstate actors, i.e., cities, regions, firms, investors, and civil society. This section unpacks this landscape to present a snapshot of major trends, structures, actors, and themes.

COP trends and themes

Since the Chilean Presidency’s COP25 in Madrid in 2019, voluntary initiatives have registered a notable rise (see Figure 1). Prominent initiatives targeting specific areas of action, such as the Cool Coalition, the Clean Air Initiative, and other transgovernmental ones such as LEAD IT, trace their origins to the 2019 Climate Action Summit hosted by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

COP28, hosted by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Dubai in 2023, sustained this momentum, registering the most initiatives (46) among all the COPs, well-suiting its record of being the largest COP hitherto (McSweeney and Viisainen 2024). Despite a minor dip, the latest COP at Baku, hosted by Azerbaijan, still racked up about 30 initiatives, twice as many as COP21. COP22, COP23 and COP24 did not see much mobilisation.

While broadly climate focus is grouped into five categories— Mitigation, Adaptation, Loss and Damage, Means of Implementation (MoI), and crosscutting mitigation and adaptation—the specific thematic areas pertain to a much larger list of 16 themes (see Figure 2). These are energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture, forests, land-use, oceans, water, waste, health, finance, human settlements, gender, youth and technology.

Box 1. What are cooperative climate initiatives?

Figure 1. Cooperative initiatives show an increasing trend over the last decade

Across the COPs, mitigation has remained the predominant focus, with about 36 per cent of all initiatives aimed at emission reduction and allied areas of action. High emissions and hard-to-abate priority sectors such as energy, industry, transport, and buildings are also the prominent mitigation-driven sectors. On the other hand, focus on adaptation-only initiatives remains low, with only 21 per cent of initiatives tagged to it. Human settlements, water, agriculture, land-use, and forests correspond to thematic focus areas that prioritise adaptation. The cross-cutting areas of mitigation and adaptation are most concentrated in the thematic focus areas of land-use and forests, with over 30 per cent of initiatives tagged to these. Loss and Damagefocused initiatives featured only at COP27.

Since COP25 in 2019, there has been a notable increase in initiatives focused on MoI, adding up to 32 per cent of initiatives focused on aspects of support related to finance, technology, and capacity building. But for over a third of these support initiatives the specific thematic target area remains unclear. Gender and health also have increasing cross-cutting engagement with initiatives across mitigation, adaptation, and MoI aimed at integrating and mainstreaming these focus areas. Youth reflects a similar pattern, albeit to a much smaller extent. Leveraging technological innovation to foster climate outcomes is an emerging trend from the recent COPs in Dubai and Baku.

Figure 2. Mitigation-driven sectors emerge as the predominant thematic focus area across initiatives, while focus on Loss and Damage is almost negligible

Structures, actors, and target regions

Based on the literature, the important structural elements of initiatives include: goals, targets, organisational arrangements, monitoring engagements, budget allocation and UNFCCC affiliation (Chan, et al. 2014, Chan, et al. 2015, Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2017, Cogswell and de Zoysa 2025). Among these structural elements, all initiatives have stated goals, and over half have organisation and monitoring arrangements. However, over 53 per cent of the initiatives do not have a clearly defined target, and barely 28 per cent of them have budgetary allocation.

Figure 3. Notable rise in participation of wide range of actors from COP25, spurred by the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019

The primary actors in our analysis are national governments. Other major actors include IGOs, MDBs, investors, private entities, and subnational entities (see Figure 3). These actors also register a sharp rise in engagement since COP25. Importantly, while 50–80 per cent of adaptation and mitigation actions are expected to be subnational (UNDP 2009), engagement at the subnational level remains low, with subnational governments’ participation in barely a fifth of all initiatives. Further, MDBs and investors have limited engagement despite their catalysing role in mobilising finance for climate action.

In terms of regions, the initiatives are spread across geographies; most target more than one region or are global (see Figure 4). Therefore, while many initiatives appear to target Africa (37 per cent), Asia (33 per cent), and Latin America (25 per cent), these are clubbed with Global North regions. In fact, standalone initiatives exclusively targeting Global South regions across Africa, Asia, and Latin America make up less than a third of all 203 initiatives assessed.

Figure 4. Over 40% of initiatives are global or lack a defined target region, highlighting the need for greater regional specificity

Beyond the buzz: A reality check

It is important to reflect on these initiatives beyond their actors, geographies, and themes, and understand their current progress by analysing the following grouped stages:

Goal accomplished: Initiatives which have achieved stated goals and which may also have initiated additional phases of their programmes.
Continuous engagement: Initiatives which show regular and periodic (annual/ biennial) updates about their progress, though targets are yet to be achieved.
Ad hoc engagement: Initiatives show engagement with evidence of activity, but updates on delivery are sporadic.
Initial announcement only: These initiatives’ updates pertain only to the initial announcement of the programme, and have no progress beyond that.
Stalled/inactive: No verifiable updates regarding these initiatives’ status or delivery are readily available.

Figure 5 shows that 44 per cent of initiatives show progress by either achieving their goals or showing continuous engagement in the form of regular and periodic updates. Over a fifth of all initiatives are either stalled/inactive, or have no update since their initial announcements. About 32 per cent of initiatives show only ad hoc engagement, despite some resource allocation and activity.

Figure 5. Many initiatives show progress, but over one-fifth remain stalled or unupdated since launch

Source: Authors’ analysis

Figure 6. Initiatives with robust integration of structural elements are showing better progress

Source: Authors’ analysis

A deeper observation of the status of these initiatives in Figure 6 reveals an interesting finding - initiatives that have robust integration of the structural elements (goals, targets, organisational arrangements, monitoring engagements, budget allocation, and UNFCCC affiliation), have advanced the furthest.

This observation is further elucidated in looking at each stage of delivery as a whole. Goal accomplished initiatives demonstrate strong integration across most structural elements, supported by clear targets, monitoring systems, and institutional arrangements, enabling them not only to meet stated goals, but also to initiate additional phases of work. Likewise, continuous engagement initiatives exhibit considerable organisational and monitoring arrangements, which allow them to maintain steady progress. Ad hoc engagement initiatives show only partial integration across the structural elements of organisational and monitoring arrangements and budgetary allocation, resulting in their sporadic activity. In contrast, initiatives that show only initial announcements or are stalled barely have the structural underpinnings required for implementation. Notably, 80 per cent of initiatives that have accomplished their goals had clear, delineated targets, i.e., defined quantum, direction, and timeline. Similarly, over 70 per cent of initiatives with continuous engagement have organisational and monitoring arrangements, in contrast to initiatives that are stalled, wherein only 14 per cent have monitoring arrangements.

Taken together, these observations highlight that the integration of organisational and monitoring arrangements, budget allocation, and setting clear targets are critical differentiators, separating initiatives that demonstrate goal achievement and continuous progress from those that stagnate or fail to advance beyond symbolic announcements.

Mapping coalitions: The leaders and their partners

Combating climate change demands collective global action, and this section maps the central actor integrating the efforts across the collectives—national governments. Usually, countries play to their strengths, and as lead actors, they strive for more inclusive engagements, bring on board major countries, amplify the pooling of resources, and leverage individual expertise to further collective goals.

Table 1 highlights how top 20 countries are placed in terms of the reach of their initiatives, approximated via the number of initiatives they have (a) led; (b) the number of participant countries they were able to mobilise; and (c) the number of initiatives they themselves have participated in.

Table 1. Mapping top 20 countries on cooperative climate initiatives

Countries	(a) Initiatives led	(b) Participants mobilised (on avg)*	(c) Initiatives participated in*
United Kingdom	33	40	92
United Arab Emirates	18	69	45
Egypt	17	34	28
Azerbaijan	16	46	33
France	14	43	71
United States	13	35	61
Germany	13	17	88
India	8	47	30
Canada	6	23	74
Norway	6	19	70
Netherlands	6	35	64
Costa Rica	5	72	52
Chile	5	63	50
Colombia	5	39	43
European Union	5	52	30
Japan	4	33	63
Sweden	4	13	57
Morocco	4	38	52
Brazil	4	13	46
Denmark	3	13	58

*Datasets are only available for 136 of the total 203 initiatives
Source: Authors’ analysis

Expectedly, mostly countries that have hosted COPs have also led the most initiatives. Among them, the United Kingdom leads with 33 initiatives. It has also mobilised a significant number of countries and has participated in the maximum number of initiatives. The UAE’s record of having hosted the largest COP is reflected here too, with the highest mobilisation (69 countries on average) compared to other COP presidencies.

Notably, while developed countries like the United States and Germany have led a considerable numbers of initiatives, they have mobilised a lower number of countries compared to Presidency countries. In fact, the Presidencies mobilise more than one-and-a-half times as many participant countries on average (see column b in Table 1). This highlights the critical role of the COP Presidency as a key orchestrator in transgovernmental climate action. This observation is most obvious in the case of Chile, which hosted the COP25 Presidency in Madrid with logistical support from Spain—the number of countries mobilised far exceeds the initiatives it led. Costa Rica’s mobilisation patterns are also different: it records high mobilisation, but mostly from much smaller countries in the Latin American region. On the other hand, the European Union (EU), despite leading relatively fewer initiatives, registered higher mobilisation—reflecting its convening power within the multilateral system. However, there are outliers to this pattern: Egypt and Morocco, despite hosting COPs, registered modest reach in initiatives.

A pattern emerges upon reflecting on the key partnering countries for each initiative-leading country (see Figure 7): developed countries mainly participated in each other’s initiatives, which also lack balanced participation from prominent Global South countries. Even in initiatives led by Global South countries, prominent participants were Global North countries.

Further, from the Global South, along with the UAE and Azerbaijan, India has emerged as an important player. Despite not hosting a COP in the last decade, India has led eight initiatives and holds a record of over 47 countries mobilised on average, at par with the Presidencies’ mobilisation average. Notably, with over 121 participating countries, the treaty based International Solar Alliance (ISA), co-founded by India and France at COP21, records one of the highest mobilisations by one initiative.

Figure 7. Global North leads in collaborations, even in initiatives led by Global South

Source: Authors’ analysis
Note: Datasets are only available for 136 of the total 203 initiatives

Recommendations

So far, our analysis has unpacked the landscape of cooperative climate initiatives in the past decade, and identified key factors influencing them to inform the future structuring of initiatives. To take forwards the findings from this research, COP30 in Belém marks an inflexion point in global climate diplomacy. It will be the first COP convened after a full turn of the Paris Agreement’s ambition cycle, and will see the third round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC 3.0), expected to be more ambitious than the second set. It also promises to continue promoting the voluntary cooperative initiatives as the ‘fourth pillar’, bringing together a wide range of actors to complement the official work of the Paris Agreement.

The following recommendations based on our analysis could inform the future of cooperative climate action:

The influence of orchestrators is significant, and therefore, COP Presidencies must continue mobilising and integrating climate action initiatives involving multiple actors. The architecture of climate governance is centred around ‘hybrid multilateralism’, where governmental negotiations and transnational collaboration work in tandem to ensure that implementation matches ambition. Our analysis finds that COP Presidencies muster more than one-anda-half times as much participation from countries on average, than non-Presidency countries. In this regard, the emerging Circle of Presidencies and Troika mechanism offers an important opportunity to institutionalise continuity, and enhance coherence across COPs.
The ample potential of cooperative initiatives can only be actualised with robust structures—goals, targets, organisation and monitoring, and budgets— that ensure effective delivery. Nearly a fifth of the initiatives are stalled, with limited resource allocation, and unclear or absent targets. Nearly half the initiatives lack robust arrangements for progress-tracking or institutional governance, rendering them ineffective. To start with, initiative actors should proactively share updates at regular intervals on the progress made to the GCAP, which could then also act as a monitoring portal beyond their current role as a repository of the initiatives.
Cooperative initiatives should engage more frequently, and bring aspects which are often neglected to the mainstream. The initiatives should operate complementarily (negotiation-related) and supplementarily (areas not addressed by negotiations) to create momentum and maintain continuity to accelerate the achievement of the Paris Agreement’s objectives. Further, the initiatives should be mindful of avoiding the uneven ambitions of negotiations, i.e., the sporadic focus on adaptation and negligible investment in Loss and Damage.
Initiatives need to leverage the power of South-South cooperation. Countries of the Global South face similar challenges and constraints, and can learn from each other’s experiences. Our analysis, however, shows that less than a third of all initiatives are exclusively targeted towards Global South regions across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania. While this skewed, it presents an opportunity for the Global South to make impactful, smaller, region- and issue-specific initiatives, rather than catch-all larger multilateral groupings.

In conclusion, this stocktake has shown that while cooperative initiatives have expanded rapidly since COP21 in Paris, and illustrate the promise of hybrid multilateralism, they are structurally fragmented, and progress remains uneven. Too often, they mirror the COP agenda instead of supplementing or complementing it. To transform initiatives into credible instruments of action, accountability must be embedded as a core principle, and orchestration must shift from symbolic to effective.

FAQs

What does COP Presidency mean?

The COP Presidency is the country hosting the annual UN Climate Conference. It leads agenda- setting, builds consensus among Parties, and mobilises countries for cooperative action. Presidencies act as key orchestrators of global climate diplomacy, shaping negotiations and launching initiatives that complement the Paris Agreement’s long-term goals.
What are cooperative climate initiatives?

Cooperative climate initiatives are voluntary partnerships among governments, organisations, and non-state actors. They accelerate climate action beyond national commitments through collaboration on mitigation, adaptation, finance, and technology. Examples like the International Solar Alliance and Cool Coalition show how collective action complements formal UNFCCC processes.
What is the Global Climate Action Agenda?

The Global Climate Action Agenda, framed as the fourth pillar of the Paris Agreement, promotes voluntary multi-actor initiatives that complement official negotiations. It mobilises diverse actors—governments, businesses, and civil society—to advance climate solutions, ensuring that implementation matches ambition across sectors and countries beyond COP discussions.
Who are the actors in cooperative climate initiatives?

Actors include national and subnational governments, international organisations, multilateral development banks, investors, private companies, and NGOs. Their collective engagement drives innovation, finance, and implementation.
What is the difference between orchestration and participation mobilised?

Orchestration refers to leadership and coordination—typically by COP Presidencies or lead countries—guiding and aligning climate initiatives. Participation mobilised measures the number of countries or actors engaged in these initiatives.