The annual Conference of Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the primary forum for international climate negotiations. Over the years, COPs have seen a significant rise in the number of participants. There are growing concerns that larger delegations do not always translate into stronger climate commitments, and that the presence of certain interest groups, particularly from the fossil fuel sector, may dilute the conference’s focus on decisive climate action.
Fossil fuel companies and vested interests at COPs
Recently, a contentious issue at COP has been the distribution of party overflow badges – which gives individuals who are not part of a country’s main delegation access to negotiations – to actors with vested interests. COP28 recorded the highest number of fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance at any COP – more than the cumulative number of delegates from the ten countries most vulnerable to climate change. This exact trend has repeated itself at COP29, with nearly 2,000 fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance.
Vested interests hinder necessary progress for ambitious climate policy; reports at COP29 evidenced the interests of fossil fuel companies to use climate negotiations as a site to promote deals for expansion, which the Grantham Institute has demonstrated can derail Paris-aligned outcomes.
Malaysia’s presence at COP
Malaysia has a history of promoting a strong business presence at COP through its overflow badges. For example, at COP28 Malaysia’s nationalised oil company received 25 overflow badges. And, as a recent RimbaWatch analysis found, at COP29 the majority of overflow badges were awarded to representatives of corporations, including companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion. Advocates for the presence of these companies, such as Malaysia’s own Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability (NRES), argue that these actors are involved in solution-making, such as through their net-zero commitments, in response to criticism.
However, the eligibility of these companies to attend COP should require proactive and good faith participation in the fossil fuel phase out. Unlike other energy sectors around the world, including Indonesia’s, Malaysia has not committed to a fossil fuel phase out, and no energy company in Malaysia has made this commitment either.
Out of a full score of 100, the World Benchmarking Alliance gaveits national oil company’s decarbonisation strategy a rating of 4.5, and Peninsular Malaysia’s energy provider a 5.1, calling their alleged credibility – as espoused by the Ministry – into question. Additionally, the companies listed in the recent RimbaWatch analysis have committed to expanding their fossil fuel capacity in conflict with the very climate science, such as the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, which is supposed to guide the COP’s negotiation processes.
Profit versus the people
Despite calls in an open letter penned by experts, including the former UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres, for increasing community and civil society participation at COP, Malaysia’s presence at the last COP was significantly skewed towards business interests. For example, the recent RimbaWatch analysis found that 151 representatives of corporations were awarded overflow badges, which is 19 times the amount awarded to local civil society organisations. Defending this outcome, the NRES clarified that they “always offered members of civil society and interested individuals badges to attend COP” and there “was a limitation to the size of delegations from the organisers”.
However, it is unclear what the criteria and selection process for “offering members of civil society” badges are, and how, despite this assurance, the NRES did not invite any representatives of Sabah and Sarawak’s civil society, nor Malaysia’s Indigenous communities. Further, this “limitation” to the delegation’s size did not deter Malaysia from inviting 151 delegates of business interests, and only eight from civil society organisations.
Call to action
As climate negotiations continue to evolve, it is crucial to ensure that Malaysia’s representation serves the purpose of advancing meaningful climate policies rather than amplifying vested interests. Malaysia needs to act on improving the process rather than defending business-oriented policies and processes.
First, there should be clarity on how the ministry selected “members of civil society and interested individuals”, as well as representatives of businesses, for both the overflow badges and the Climate Change Advisory and Consultative Panels. Next, for future COPs, there needs to be a clear, accountable process with strict eligibility criteria for party overflow badges. Participation from corporations with vested interests in conflict with climate science such as fossil fuel companies should not be included in the COP negotiations process. Instead, badges should be awarded to representatives of climate-affected communities, Indigenous communities, climate scientists and NGOs instead.
