The COP31 President—Minister Murat Kurum of Türkiye—officially called for Antalya to be the “COP of the Future: The COP of Implementation.” Many COPs have previously promised to prioritize implementation and climate action. Making this call meaningful requires a serious answer to a deceptively simple question: what does implementation inside the UNFCCC process actually look like? 

There is broad agreement among Parties that the era of foundational negotiations is over and the focus must shift to delivery—translating commitments into real-world action. COP30 modeled one version of this outside the formal negotiations. The Brazil Presidency elevated the Global Climate Action Agenda and linked it to the first Global Stocktake outcomes, including targets such as tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency.  

Inside the negotiations, there is an underutilized process that, if better leveraged, could deliver exactly what an implementation COP should do: put a multilateral spotlight on what countries are actually delivering. 

What the FMCP is – and why it matters  

The Facilitative Multilateral Consideration of Progress (FMCP) is a peer review process built into the Paris Agreement’s transparency architecture. Building on countries’ transparency reports, it is an open, structured dialogue in which Parties—in front of all other countries—present and answer questions on their progress toward achieving their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and their efforts on climate finance under Article 9. It is non-punitive and non-intrusive by design, underpinned by an understanding that country capacity-building will be financially supported and improve over time—establishing a safe space for countries to engage each other. But it is also mandatory: no country is exempt. 

Despite this, transparency is routinely treated as a niche technical exercise. This misses the point and forgets that the enhanced transparency framework—with the FMCP as a key element—was one of the most fiercely negotiated parts of the Paris Agreement and crucial to delivering on its goals.  

Transparency reports and the FMCP are not just compliance paperwork—they are the evidence base for implementation and how countries demonstrate leadership. Used well, the FMCP allows countries to showcase delivery, identify barriers and the assistance they need to overcome them, and mobilize finance and partnerships to advance their climate action.  

The FMCP, designed to foster productive dialogue, can unlock dynamics that Parties have struggled with, for example under the Mitigation Work Programme. The first two sessions of the FMCP have shown that the process is constructive and can help countries move beyond political fragmentation that limits discussion to highlight what is really working.   

But calls to prioritize implementation at COPs ring hollow if countries are not engaging in the process designed to demonstrate it.    

The scale of the third FMCP session—to be held at the upcoming June Climate Meetings (SB64) —is especially significant:  

• 37 countries, representing half of global emissions, will present progress toward meeting their NDCs and efforts on climate finance.  

• The group includes the COP29 (Azerbaijan), COP30 (Brazil), and COP31 (Türkiye and Australia) Presidencies, as well as the United Kingdom, China, Germany, France, Indonesia, among many others.  

Four Priorities to Strengthen the FMCP  

Four elements can elevate the FMCP as a central venue for demonstrating implementation within the UNFCCC: 

• The COP Presidencies must lead by example. Brazil, Australia, Türkiye, and Azerbaijan are all scheduled to present at the FMCP session in Bonn. A collective agreement among the Presidencies to send high-level or even ministerial representation to deliver their respective FMCP statements—rather than the typical technical negotiator—would send a powerful signal of the political relevance of this process. It could also set a precedent for other Parties to send high-level representation to the FMCP.  

• Parties could use the FMCP to ask political questions. The FMCP was designed for difficult conversations, but so far, countries have mostly used it for technical exchanges. The written Q&A portion already provides space for technical clarification, but the in-person session is where more substantive exchange should happen. Parties could use this space to ask each other about climate finance responsibilities, the status of conditional NDC elements, gaps between targets and policies on the ground, and other contentious issues. Some countries that participated in the FMCP at COP30 even noted that they felt no demanding questions were raised, despite actively inviting difficult questions from peers. Frank exchange here should not be viewed as confrontational—rather as an opportunity to highlight what is working and what challenges remain.  

• The FMCP provides an opportunity for countries to showcase their contributions to global climate action beyond their own borders through international cooperative initiatives (ICIs) participating in the Action Agenda. In doing so, Parties can also surface implementation gaps and translate barriers into investment and cooperation opportunities. Connecting these initiatives, such as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance and the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action, to NDC implementation would demonstrate how multilateral—and plurilateral—cooperation is accelerating delivery.  

• The transparency process needs greater engagement from civil society and the private sector. Research institutions, advocacy organizations, and industry actors have a role in the FMCP too. Greater engagement with country transparency findings—by tracking country commitments, comparing them to domestic policy, and flagging gaps—builds the accountability infrastructure and on-the-ground narrative that political processes alone cannot provide.  

The Bigger Picture: Connecting National Climate Commitments to Real-World Action 

The Paris Agreement’s full architecture is now operational. The tools exist. The question is whether countries will use them—and use them seriously. 

The FMCP will not solve the climate crisis. But it is where countries go on record about whether they are delivering on their NDCs and finance commitments, and where they can highlight barriers and signal the support they need. It is not a technicality. In a political moment where multilateralism is under pressure, showing up and being transparent is itself an act of leadership. 

Whether the Paris Agreement achieves its goals depends on political commitment, not further negotiation. The FMCP is one of the clearest tests of that commitment available. COP31’s call for implementation should start here.