A Deep Dive Into Climate Change Negotiations

With global temperature increases, climate change negotiations have become a prominent part of international policy. These negotiations are complex, often multi-party, and definitely high-stakes.

Sound familiar? It may be a different context, but the successes and pitfalls of climate change negotiations have a lot in common with business deal-making. Regardless of what or where you are negotiating, there are valuable lessons to be learned.

What Is Climate Change Negotiation

Climate change negotiations is a formal discussion to agree on climate actions that governments and the private sector must take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These are held at and leading up to the annual United Nations (UN) Conference of the Parties (COP). The negotiation process is a multi-faceted affair, with sixteen negotiating groups from over 190 nation-states present. Each has differing interests and aims, some of which are in conflict. Despite the complexity, UN climate change conferences have produced 2 core negotiation outcomes that we can learn from.

1. The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was the first major attempt to turn climate ambition into binding commitments. Agreed in 1997 after two years of intense negotiation, it required industrialised nations to meet legally enforceable emissions-reduction targets. It also introduced innovative mechanisms like emissions trading, which allowed countries to negotiate their way to compliance.

While not perfect, Kyoto showed how structure, preparation, and strategic flexibility can turn complex multilateral talks into meaningful action. Because of limitations (such as a lack of inclusivity), the framework was superseded by the Paris Agreement in 2016.

2. The Paris Agreement

The Paris Climate Accord requires quantified commitments by nation-states not only of what they plan to achieve but also of how they plan to achieve it. The core aim of the Paris Agreement treaty is “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” However, the way in which parties accomplish national climate objectives is tailored to the national interests, capabilities, and circumstances of the countries themselves. Parties report their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and must update them every five years.

What Works in Climate Negotiations

The international climate negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement differed in structure and aims, with strengths and weaknesses to each. Here, we will compare them, beginning with what aligns with negotiation best practices.

Structure

Good negotiations do not happen by accident. They happen by design. Both the Kyoto and Paris treaties had a structured approach. The Kyoto Protocol had a top-down structure, in which emissions targets were enforced upon the participating countries via its compliance mechanism. The Paris Agreement has a bottom-up approach, in which every country contributes to the conversation and is required to report on its progress once every five years.

Preparation

Preparation is the first principle of negotiation, according to The Scotwork 8-Step Approach©. But 4 in 10 negotiators sometimes enter negotiation with none at all. This, however, wasn't the case for the U.S and China, who engaged in preliminary talks in the lead-up to the Paris Agreement. As a result, both countries agreed to ratify the treaty—a landmark development in climate negotiations. The takeaway? Prepare by analysing the priorities, limits, and motivations of others, and get clear on your own.

Clear Proposals

Both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement came into force because they made clear and measurable proposals. This is a marked shift from previous climate negotiations that often stalled on abstract demands. Kyoto clarified exactly how states would calculate greenhouse gas emissions. Paris built on this, requiring each country to submit a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), outlining its climate targets and the specific steps it would take to reach them. For example, the UK has pledged to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030.

Flexibility

Some negotiators believe that indicating flexibility is a sign of weakness. But at its heart, negotiation is about trading value. The Paris Agreement demonstrates this, allowing countries to not only propose their own targets but also have a say in how they would accomplish them. This is a contributing factor to why states that were unsupportive of the Kyoto Protocol agreed to both sign and ratify the Paris Agreement. In return for greater autonomy in how the deal is carried out, parties are willing to meet more ambitious goals.

Shared Ownership

The Paris Agreement is universal, including voices for specific geographic concerns. One such is the Mountain Group, which highlights climate concerns relating to the mountainous regions of Armenia, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan. By allowing parties to contribute to climate goals, there is a greater sense of ownership that heightens the likelihood of follow-through. It is the same for business negotiations. When negotiators involve all parties in shaping the deal, they create shared ownership and a broader consensus.

What Doesn't Work in Climate Negotiations

Climate negotiations have made real progress since the 1990s. But they've also faced setbacks, often due to rigid positions, imbalanced power, and poor follow-through. Here is what to avoid.

Rigidity

While the Kyoto Protocol allowed countries some flexibility with how they met climate goals, there was limited scope to shape commitments around their own priorities or changing circumstances. This resulted in Canada's withdrawal from the deal in 2011, in light of the required fines of $13.6bn for failing to meet targets. The lesson: be willing to be flexible on your wishes, if not your non-negotiables, and build the potential for renegotiation into your deal.

Poor Implementation

Kyoto made demands but failed to anticipate the details. For example, there was no mechanism for a "just transition" of the economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Without this clear direction, parties became nervous and unwilling to play. When you make a deal, leave no stone unturned. Don't just say what will be done; clarify how it will be accomplished.

Imbalance of Power

When one or two parties dominate the outcome, others disengage. True negotiation needs to balance power with participation. In initial climate negotiations, developed countries were expected to take primary responsibility for implementing climate interventions. This caused two problems. Indigenous peoples were cast as victims rather than communities that could provide practical knowledge. And developed countries felt that it was unfair for high-emission-emitting India and China to receive no accountability.

Failure to Manage Deadlock

Despite signing the Kyoto Protocol, the US rejected ratification, citing economic disadvantage and perceived inequalities. This is a classic case of what happens when negotiators hit a deadlock and have no plan to manage it. The Paris Agreement was initially more successful, with commitments being re-packaged to make the deal more attractive to the US and other world superpowers. President Trump has since withdrawn the US from the treaty again – a further example of the harm that a win-or-lose mentality can have on negotiations.

Plan Better Negotiations with Scotwork

You are unlikely to have negotiations on the scale of those needed to navigate climate change. But you may well conduct decisive multi-party negotiations in a cross-cultural business environment. The core lessons are the same.

Scotwork advanced negotiation training (ANS) teaches exactly how to prepare, propose, and package your deals. We unpack the psychology of negotiations and teach confidence at the table.

In the words of one of our clients, "We’ve not only strengthened our confidence when negotiating with much larger customers but have also shifted to a position of strength—fully understanding and articulating the value we bring."

If you want to plan and execute stronger negotiations, get in touch today.