What are the three Conference of the Parties (COPs) and how are they organized?

Understanding the COPs on climate, biodiversity and desertification, or what is the same, the three Conventions of the Parties on environmental issues that were proposed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is not an easy task.

All three have things in common, such as being part of international United Nations processes, but they are not the same conference nor do they depend on exactly the same agreement.

The three COPs are events where countries that have decided to be part of a binding international agreement come together to negotiate how to resolve a specific environmental problem that affects them globally. Each agreement and each summit or COP are related and during the days of the summit, the implementation of the agreement is reviewed, agreements are negotiated between all parties and decisions are made on how to proceed in the future. The climate COP , for example, is governed by the binding agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in 1992, and is supported by its secretariat, based in Bonn. The framework political instrument that governs this convention is the Paris Agreement, which was adopted in 2015 in Paris during COP21. The biodiversity COP depends on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) , also adopted in 1992, and is assisted by its secretariat, based in Montreal. The framework agreement to conserve nature is included in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022. Finally, the COP on desertification is governed by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), adopted in 1994, and has a secretariat based in Bonn. This agreement has a Strategic Framework 2018-2030 where the main plan is the Neutralization of Land Degradation. All three agreements have more than 190 countries linked.

The best known is probably the Climate COP, which is held every year and brings together governments from around the world to negotiate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, agree on financing to address the losses and damage caused by climate change and promote adaptation measures to the impacts that are already inevitable.

The other two major environmental COPs, on biodiversity and desertification, are held every two years. The first seeks to halt the loss of species and habitats, restore degraded ecosystems and ensure sustainable use of natural resources, as well as a fair sharing of the benefits that arise from them. The second focuses on combating land degradation, desertification and drought, promoting their restoration and sustainable management that contributes to protecting water resources, food production and the livelihoods of the affected populations.

The structure of the three COPs is similar, and most importantly for a research center like CREAF, all three have a scientific panel that provides data and produces assessments that serve to ensure that the proposals to be negotiated are based on science. These scientific panels are unique for each case and are open to scientists from all over the world who can join and contribute their expertise. In the case of the climate COP, there is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which evaluates scientific research on global warming, its impacts and possible responses. At CREAF we have Jofre Carnicer who is part of it. At the biodiversity COP, this scientific function is mainly carried out by the IPBES (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), which evaluates the state of biodiversity and the causes of its loss. In CREAF, both Jordi Bosch and Lluís Brotons have participated at different times, although now it is Lluís Brotons who has a more prominent role. Finally, in the COP on desertification, there is the SPI (Science-Policy Interface) which works to connect scientific knowledge with policies to combat land degradation and droughts.

These three scientific panels, however, do not work alone; each COP also has a more practical panel that is responsible for the technical and advisory part of the agreements. These bodies help convert knowledge into recommendations for governments, which are responsible for negotiating and approving the agreements. At the climate COP, it is called the SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice), and advises on scientific and technological issues; at the biodiversity COP, it is a similar name, the SBSTTA (Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice) that examines scientific, technical and technological issues related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity; and at the desertification COP, it is the CST (Committee on Science and Technology), which advises on the scientific and technological aspects of the fight against land degradation.

In addition, both the climate COP and the biodiversity COP have another subsidiary body, called the SBI ( Subsidiary Body for Implementation ), which focuses on the implementation of the agreements. Its job is to review how countries are progressing with the commitments they have made, identify the difficulties in fulfilling them and formulate recommendations to improve their implementation. In other words, while the scientific and technical bodies help determine what needs to be done and on what scientific basis, the SBI focuses on how what has been agreed is put into practice.

In addition to governments and all these figures, each COP also has observer entities , the figure that CREAF has adopted to be able to attend these conventions. Observer entities are organizations that participate in the COPs without having formal decision-making power or voting rights like states. They can be environmental NGOs, indigenous communities, universities, research centers, companies, unions or youth organizations, among others. Their function is to provide knowledge and experience, make demands to governments, follow negotiations and influence agreements through reports, side events and advocacy tasks. Their participation allows different perspectives to be incorporated into the debates and to monitor the commitments adopted by governments.

The media often label COPs as spaces that fail to reach agreements, as useless conventions or as a whole show. However, COPs have been very useful throughout history in putting environmental issues on the political and media agenda around the world, and have also allowed for the establishment of international commitments that would have been difficult to achieve with isolated initiatives from each country. One example is the Paris Agreement, which has consolidated a global framework for states to present and update their climate commitments. This effort has had results: according to a study by Climate Analytics published in 2025 , before the Paris Agreement, projections pointed to global warming of around 3.6°C by the end of the century, while current policies place this forecast at around 2.7°C. This is a reduction of almost one degree, although we are still far from the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C.

Another example is the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which has set concrete targets for 2030, such as conserving 30% of land and sea and restoring 30% of degraded ecosystems. This agreement, for example, has resulted in the new European Nature Restoration Act, with a historic commitment to restoring ecosystems across Europe. These agreements also serve as a reference for developing national policies, guiding investments and assessing whether governments are moving in the agreed direction.

However, the results are uneven and often insufficient compared to the established objectives. In the case of climate, current commitments still do not guarantee that global warming will be limited to 1.5 °C; in biodiversity, species loss and ecosystem degradation remain serious problems. For this reason, one of the most important functions of the COP is to maintain a process of international review and pressure that allows for the identification of shortcomings and calls for more action. Their value is not measured only by the agreements they approve, but also by the capacity to convert them into effective policies and measurable results.