A vision of a climate negotiation process that harmonises ambition, capability, equity and necessity
T |
he Japanese concept of ikigai represents the intersection of purpose, passion, vocation and mission, forming a guiding principle for a fulfilling existence. Rooted in the idea of finding harmony between what one loves, what one is good at, what the world needs and what one can be rewarded for, ikigai emphasises balance and interconnectedness.
Applied to the Conference of the Parties, ikigai symbolises the convergence of ambition, capability, equity and necessity — creating a platform that aspires to align diverse global interests for the shared goal of combating climate change. Like the four pillars of ikigai, COP’s mission depends on aligning nations’ ambitions with their capacity, equitably distributing responsibilities and addressing the urgent necessity of climate action.
Despite the noble aspirations underpinning the COP, the mechanisms through which negotiations are conducted often fall short of their purpose. As the globe faces the dual imperatives of mitigating climate risks and adapting to irreversible changes, the COP must recalibrate its methods to embody inclusivity, justice and science-based decision-making. The challenge lies in reshaping the negotiating frameworks to ensure broad participation, integrating pluralistic agendas and enhancing the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC). Each of these dimensions represents an opportunity to move closer to the ikigai of the COP process, ensuring that its outcomes are both effective and equitable.
For COP to fulfill its ikigai, it must address the persistent disparities in participation that skew negotiations towards the interests of wealthier nations. Historically, power dynamics within climate negotiations have marginalised the voices of low-income countries, indigenous peoples and vulnerable populations — those most affected by climate change yet least responsible for it. True inclusivity requires structural changes that ensure that these voices are not merely heard but actively shape decision-making processes.
Providing financial and logistical support to delegations from least-developed countries (LDCs) and civil society organisations is a critical step towards leveling the playing field. Moreover, the COP must institutionalise mechanisms for incorporating indigenous knowledge systems, which are often rich repositories of sustainable practices. This inclusion would not only enhance the cultural diversity of solutions but also ground policies in locally relevant approaches. Meaningful youth engagement, another neglected dimension, demands formalised spaces where younger generations can influence the agenda, bringing innovative ideas and long-term perspectives to the table.
To reflect its ikigai a COP must integrate climate justice and scientific rigour into its core agenda. Climate justice, which calls for equitable distribution of climate burdens and benefits, is not merely a moral imperative but also a practical necessity for fostering trust and cooperation. The disproportionate impacts of climate change on vulnerable nations must be addressed through targeted mechanisms, such as the operationalisation of the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance and Loss and Damage Fund. To ensure equity, the design and disbursement of this fund must involve recipient nations in decision-making, preventing donor nations from imposing conditions that undermine sovereignty.
Simultaneously, the COP must anchor its actions in the latest scientific findings to ensure the credibility of its commitments. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides a robust foundation of evidence that should guide negotiations on mitigation, adaptation and financing. Science can also play a pivotal role in resolving contentious issues, such as setting carbon budgets and identifying pathways for net-zero transitions. By embracing a pluralistic agenda that balances justice with science, the COP can craft policies that are both ethically sound and technically feasible.
The CBDR-RC principle, a cornerstone of international climate governance, acknowledges that nations have different responsibilities and capabilities in addressing climate change. While the principle has been instrumental in securing commitments from developing countries, its implementation often faces resistance from wealthier nations reluctant to shoulder their fair share of the burden. To strengthen CBDR-RC, the concept must evolve to reflect contemporary realities without losing sight of historical responsibilities.
One way to enhance CBDR-RC is by quantifying historical emissions to establish clear metrics for equitable responsibility sharing. Such an approach would provide a transparent basis for commitments, reducing the scope for ambiguity and political maneuvering. Tiered frameworks for action, where developed nations prioritise mitigation and financing while developing nations focus on adaptation and capacity-building, could further operationalise this principle. However, these measures require robust accountability mechanisms to ensure that commitments are honored, particularly by high-income nations with a history of unmet promises.
One way to have participation of public and private sector to generate more climate finance is to have effective market based climate finance instruments such as carbon credits under Article 6 of Paris Agreement.
At COP29, the breakthrough in Article 6 negotiations marked a pivotal step towards the ikigai of the global climate process by addressing the complicated balance of ambition, capability, equity and necessity. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement enables countries to trade mitigation outcomes through both bilateral agreements (Article 6.2) and a centralised UN framework (Article 6.4).
These mechanisms promise to harmonise global carbon markets while fostering cost-efficient pathways to achieving climate goals. However, their success hinges on equitability and robust oversight, which are fundamental to maintaining the environmental and social integrity of carbon credits.
The clarity provided by COP29 on Article 6.2 rules is a significant stride in ensuring transparency and governance in country-to-country trading of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes. By establishing frameworks for registries and authorisations, it reinforces trust in the carbon market’s integrity. Similarly, the finalised Article 6.4 framework aims to rectify longstanding inefficiencies and credibility challenges, offering a centralised mechanism to oversee transactions.
These advancements align with the ikigai concept by addressing what the global climate community needs (effective market rules), leveraging what nations are capable of (resource allocation for carbon trading) and ensuring the just distribution of benefits and responsibilities.
However, equitable implementation of Article 6 remains fraught with challenges. Critics, including NGOs like Carbon Market Watch, warn of persistent loopholes such as double counting, particularly in voluntary markets outside the Article 6 framework. These gaps undermine the very purpose of carbon trading by allowing inflated claims of emission reductions. Without a supranational body to enforce compliance, responsibility for oversight lies with individual nations — a structure prone to inconsistency and weak enforcement.
In this context, the ikigai of COP29 demands mechanisms that prioritise equity by ensuring developing nations, often the most vulnerable to climate impacts, receive adequate support for participating in and benefiting from these markets.
To preserve the credibility of carbon credits, Article 6 implementation must emphasise high-quality oversight. This includes independent, risk-based ratings and stringent monitoring to avoid greenwashing and ensure that traded credits represent real, additional, and permanent emission reductions. The focus should also shift towards removal-based credits, such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which provide durable climate benefits. Furthermore, establishing a single global standard for carbon credits, incorporating lessons from voluntary markets, would reduce uncertainty for investors and bolster the market’s environmental integrity.
The equitability of Article 6 mechanisms also necessitates addressing systemic risks, particularly in the Global South. Carbon credit projects in these regions often face political, geographicaland social challenges that inflate the cost of credit generation. Without adequate compensation for these risks, the value chain disproportionately favours wealthier nations, contradicting the ikigai principle of just and inclusive development. To mitigate this, financial instruments like risk-sharing mechanisms or premium pricing for credits generated in vulnerable regions must be integrated into Article 6 frameworks.
The COP29 agreement on Article 6 sets the stage for substantial growth in carbon markets, projected to save $250 billion annually by 2030 towards achieving nationally determined contributions. This economic incentive could encourage higher ambition in climate targets, but only if the system operates equitably and transparently. For example, Pakistan, as a country vulnerable to climate impacts, can leverage these developments to develop carbon credit projects in sectors such as forestry and agriculture. By doing so, Pakistan could attract international financing while ensuring that its participation aligns with national climate priorities and sustainable development goals.
The ikigai of COP represents a vision of a climate negotiation process that harmonises ambition, capability, equity and necessity, providing a pathway for a global response that is both effective and just. While the COP has made significant strides, particularly in the context of the Article 6 negotiations, challenges remain, especially in ensuring inclusivity, equity and effective implementation. For the COP to truly embody its ikigai, it must deepen its commitment to balancing the voices of marginalised groups, integrate scientific rigor and address historical and systemic inequities.
The success of mechanisms like carbon markets hinges on transparent, inclusive frameworks that uphold the principles of climate justice and support the most vulnerable nations. Ultimately, the vision of COP must evolve beyond negotiations to become a transformative platform that fosters a global, cooperative effort for a sustainable and equitable future.
The writer has a doctorate in energy economics. He tweets @Khalidwaleed_