IMPORTANT: Legal Response International (LRI) acts as an intermediary in obtaining legal advice from third parties on the query you have raised. That advice is provided to LRI but we are able to share it with you. The third-party advisers have accepted certain duties to LRI but have not and do not accept any duty to you. LRI itself does not and cannot provide legal advice. As a consequence, LRI takes no responsibility for the content of any advice that it forwards, nor does it accept any responsibility for any delay either in obtaining or sending copies to you of the advice it receives.

 
In forwarding the advice to you, LRI does not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with you and to the extent permitted by law, any liability of LRI to you (including in negligence or for any damages of any kind) is excluded. Any dispute between you and LRI shall be governed by English Law, and the English Courts will have exclusive jurisdiction. You agree that the English courts are the most appropriate and convenient courts to settle any dispute or claim that arises out of or in connection with this retainer and, accordingly, that you will not argue to the contrary. In consideration of LRI sharing the advice with you, you agree to the terms set out above.

This advice is provided by third parties in response to Query 52/25

Query:

Do any of the proposals suggested in the UNFCCC secretariat’s note on “Approaches to and opportunities for increasing the efficiency of the UNFCCC process, including visualization of options for streamlining the agendas of the governing and subsidiary bodies”[1] contradict the rules of procedures of the COP and its subsidiary bodies, and the respective rules of procedures of the bodies, mechanisms and institutions? If so, how?

Context:

A note by the secretariat of the UNFCCC was circulated during the June Climate Meetings (SB 62) containing proposals to increase the efficiency of the UNFCCC process and streamline its agenda. However, some of the proposals included in the note could undermine the rules of procedure of the COP and its subsidiary bodies, which were adopted by Parties in 1996.

Advice:

1. The Authority and Process for the Adoption of an Agenda/ Agendas

Rules of Procedure

The Conference of Parties (“COP”) and its subsidiary bodies have procedures for the formulation, adoption, and amendment of agendas under the UNFCCC Rules of Procedure, specifically Rules 9 to 16 for COP; applied mutatis mutandis to the subsidiary bodies by Rule 27.

The right of any Party to propose a new agenda item is expressly protected under Rule 10(d) and Rule 12. It is only the COP that has the authority to add, delete, defer, or amend agenda items upon adoption according to Rule 13.

Additionally, the heads of the secretariat may assist but do not have any agenda-setting authority.

Proposals from Secretariat’s Note

Proposal for the Bureau, presiding officers, and secretariat to play an enhanced or potentially decision-making role in clustering, consolidating, or limiting agenda items before they go to Parties.

Proposals for a standing agenda item to discuss/defer new agenda items (from the LDC suggestion), and for presiding officers or the Bureau to make the decision on the items that will be taken up each year (multi-year planning).

Analysis:

• Possible Contradiction

If the Bureau, presiding officers, or secretariat are given power to block or filter legitimate proposals from Parties before they reach the COP for adoption, this could undermine Rules 10 and 12 of the Rules of Procedure, which guarantee the right of Parties to place items on the provisional or supplementary agenda, and Rule 13, which reserves adoption or amendment of the agenda to all Parties.

• Party Ownership

The Rules insist on a Party-driven processes. Shifting a decisive agenda-setting authority to the Bureau, presiding officers, or secretariat would contradict the intention of Rules 9 to 16 and the spirit of Rule 27.

• Multi-year Planning

If certain topics are systematically excluded from annual agendas without the opportunity for Parties to override or add items, this could violate Rule 13 and restrict Parties’ ability to bring forward urgent issues.

2. Mandated Events and Procedural Mandates

Rules of Procedure Context

Provisional agendas are defined by agreed mandates, decisions, and prior items according to Rule 10 and Rule 13.

All agenda items that have not ” completed” their work are automatically continued unless otherwise decided under Rule 16.

The secretariat’s role is administrative, which includes drafting or facilitating of events or meetings as opposed to making decisions as stated in Rule 29.

Proposals from Secretariat’s Note

Setting a maximum number of mandated events or sessions, providing guidance on which mandated events occur and the frequency of the same.

The Bureau or secretariat are to provide budgetary and organizational guidance on the new mandates or events.

Analysis:

• Procedural Mandates

The deferment or capping of mandated events, or merging substantive mandates, would need to occur by decision of the Parties at a session, not by secretariat, the Bureau, or presiding officers’ discretion. Otherwise, this could violate the principle that no substantive agenda item or previously mandated event can be omitted except by a decision of the Parties in accordance with Rules 13 and 16.

• Advisory versus Executive Role

It is not a violation for the secretariat to provide cost or budget guidance, but taking decisions on the number or frequency of events themselves would contradict the role assigned to the Parties or the COP under the Rules of Procedure.

For example, Rule 29 specifically states that the secretariat’s functions are administrative and supportive. Further, the secretariat must arrange for interpretation, document management, distribution, and provide “appropriate support and advice” to the COP and subsidiary bodies. Therefore, Rule 29 does not assign the Secretariat any decision-making authority over agenda items or the number of mandated events.

Further, Rule 15 states that the secretariat is required to report on the administrative and budgetary implications of substantive agenda items before they are taken up by the COP. This positions the secretariat only in an advisory capacity with respect to cost or budgeting guidance.

Additionally, Rule 13 empowers only the COP to add, delete, defer, or amend agenda items when adopting the agenda which includes mandated events, their timing, and frequency. This maintains that decisions about substantive matters remain only with the Parties.

3. Multi-Year Programmatic Planning and Deferral of Agenda Items

Rules of Procedure Context

The COP may defer or amend Agenda items annually, but must do so each time by a decision of the Parties as stated under Rule 13 and Rule 16.

Proposal from Secretariat’s Note

Proposals to adopt multi-year programmatic planning, deciding in advance which items are deferred or scheduled biennially or triennially, and to close agenda items for lack of progress, including through sunset clauses.

Analysis:

• Potential Contradiction

If multi-year or sunset planning is established such that Parties are prevented from revisiting or adding items annually or if the process for annual review and adoption of the agenda is diminished, the proposal would conflict with Rules 13 and 16, which guarantee annual review of the agenda, the possibility of adding urgent items and automatic their continuation unless the COP decides otherwise.

The secretariat’s note acknowledges that implementing multi-year planning for agenda items may require amendments to the Rules of Procedure or explicit COP decisions overriding earlier arrangements. Such amendments would be necessary to comply with the rules.

4. Authority of Subsidiary Bodies and Specialized Institutions

Rules of Procedure Context

The COP may establish subsidiary bodies, but these have their own mandates and the same procedural guarantees for agenda setting and participation according to Rule 27.

Proposal from Secretariat’s Note

Proposals that presiding officers, Bureau, or secretariat would rationalize workload for all bodies—including specialized ones—with streamlined guidance and clustered agenda approaches.

Analysis:

• If clustering and rationalization are done by the bodies themselves in accordance with their Rules of Procedure or by COP decision, they are consistent with the Rules of Procedure.

• If they are enforced externally by the secretariat, Bureau, or presiding officers without the consent or decision of the relevant body, this could undermine the autonomy and procedural guarantees of those bodies and potentially violate Rule 27.

5. Inclusivity, Participation, and Language

Rules of Procedure Context

All Parties have participation rights; observer status, language, and access are specified in Rules 6 to 8 and Rules 54 to 56.

Proposals from Secretariat’s Note

The several proposals aim to enhance inclusivity but they also seem to suggest capping delegations, limiting side events, or relocating events.

Analysis:

• The proposals made are generally not in conflict, as they are advisory or would require COP decision for implementation. However, any move to limit the rights of participation, language access, or observer status without explicit Party approval would contravene the Rules of Procedure.

6. Role of secretariat and Bureau

• Rules of Procedure context

The secretariat and Bureau have defined administrative and facilitation roles but no substantive decision-making authority over COP processes or outcomes as per Rules 22 to 26.

• Proposals from Secretariat’s Note

Proposals to confer an enhanced, potentially executive role on the secretariat or Bureau.

Analysis:

• Contradiction

Any implementation of proposals that would allow the secretariat or Bureau to substitute for the Parties in procedural or substantive matters – such as filtering agenda items, closing negotiations, amending the agenda without Party agreement – would conflict with the Rules of Procedure and the foundational principle that the UNFCCC is Party-driven, and that all authority for decisions rests with the Parties and not secretariat or indeed Bureau.

Summary Table: Potential contradictions between proposed reforms and Rules of Procedure

7. Conclusion

All efficiency-enhancing reforms or proposals should preserve Party-driven decision-making and an annual review of substantive and procedural items as provided in the Rules of Procedure. The secretariat, Bureau as well as presiding officers are essential for the advisory, facilitation and support of the entire process, but they cannot supplant the authority of the Parties themselves except with their explicit, formal agreement.

If proposals in the secretariat’s note are executed as new standing rules or as a means to override or substitute the intention of the Parties as provided in the Rules, they would directly contradict the existing procedural framework.

[1]         FCCC/SBI/2025/INF.6 (5 June 2025).