More than 30 years ago, when we first grasped the seriousness of the climate crisis, our task was to understand where it came from and why. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consolidated and encouraged science, others tried to pass the hot potato along or set up processes where a handful of people would decide for everyone. But the problem was so vast that only multilateralism could work - slow, yes, but collective.
Then came the “era of ambition”: big political promises, huge numbers, bold targets for what would be done and by when. And yes, in 2025 we still need better solutions and stronger commitments. We need countries to agree to phase out fossil fuels, protect forests, and provide proper funding for adaptation.
But that alone is no longer enough.
In practice, the skills we need now are different. Diplomats are not trained to listen to local needs and design solutions. Politicians are not trained to implement projects and political cycles are far too short to take a climate project from idea to real benefits for people. The ones doing the real, continuous work are public servants, NGOs, researchers, regulators, businesses, and financial institutions. That is why COPs today are full of these people.
They are the ones who matter most now. We already know the “why,” the “where,” the “what,” and the “when.” What is missing is the how - the technical work, unglamorous and often tedious, that rarely makes headlines but is precisely what turns climate action into reality.
Who benefits from claiming that COPs have become “too big” or that “ambition is hollow,” while ignoring the essential technical work these gatherings generate? These arguments echo the same voices that discredit science and multilateralism because a rougher, easier version of the world suits them - one where pollution isn’t measured and unsustainable practices can continue without obstacles.
Nationally Determined Contributions and other climate policies have been advancing at the national level, but we are now in the phase of climate implementation. To deliver the Paris Agreement, implementers need spaces to meet, learn, exchange ideas and improve their work. They cannot simply follow political leaders; they need a seat at the table, with time to talk.
In most countries, that will happen mostly at the subnational levels, led by state and municipal governments, together with communities, NGOs, universities, companies, cooperatives and citizens. Civil servants in these subnational governments have been the ones leading the translation of global and national commitments to the implementation of policies and projects on the ground for that past 10 to 20 years. These people know what works, what has already failed, and what needs to change. They should be regularly meeting their peers from other countries.
The Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) offers this kind of platform, but only for the Global North. There, technical experts continually meet to debate and refine policies down to processes and indicators. The Global South has nothing similar. So, these experts depend on COP to meet informally, on the sidelines, while accompanying their political delegations. Implementation needs to move forward - and for that, implementers need to leave the margins and come centre stage, while COPs need to evolve.
But that does not mean more headlines about big numbers.
Negotiations must continue, but official events need to adapt to a new reality. In Belém, none of the sessions I attended — neither in the Green Zone nor the Blue Zone — opened the floor for public questions or real debate. Reflecting the old focus on ambition, the COP has turned into a stage for speeches, not discussion.
We need collaborative spaces, structured exchanges, and clear follow-up - not polished LinkedIn photos or panels that prioritise hierarchy. Governments will not send their implementers if only political leaders get a chance to speak. And more than ever, we need these implementers sharing local solutions, with funders listening and agreeing on concrete action points with timelines for revisiting progress.
Does that sound boring? Too bad.
Technical, local work needs to be done — and it will rarely make headlines with our current expectations. Discrediting and continuing to sideline the work done by the invisible implementers is not only unfair - it's extremely dangerous.
Luis Zamarioli is a technical consultant in Brazil for Climate Group and holds an MPhil from the University of Cambridge, with more than twelve years of experience on climate finance and policy.