With COP26 concluded the post-mortem has focused on the relative ambitions of the ‘Glasgow Pact’ and the Article 6 rulebook. Whilst these two outputs are important and will grab all the headlines, it is the underlying themes of this COP where the real insights were to be found.

Firstly, this was a COP dominated by business pledges, from the launch of the Net Zero standard and various sectoral initiatives, to discussions about voluntary carbon markets. It was also the COP of multilateral pledges such as the ‘Methane Moment’ and various collective action funds. It’s not so easy to get away with bold headlines anymore, however, with many critical voices questioning the longevity of these announcements and whether they go far enough and perhaps more critically, how they will be achieved and how we will know.

Secondly, Paris is a voluntary mechanism. The Methane Moment is a voluntary mechanism. Science Based Targets is a voluntary mechanism. The voluntary carbon market….you get the picture. This was the COP where it became obvious that the peer pressure mechanism of Paris can’t do the job alone, instead relying on good will collaborations, such as those agreed between the US and China. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, unless you couple it with the first point. It’s clear now that pressure will come from civil society, citizens, consumers and to some extent private sector competition. In addition, companies may find themselves increasingly sued by civil society actors, and emerging regulation in the financial industry may increase the pressure on corporations towards transparency and environmental robustness of their climate action claims.

While COP26 didn’t explicitly focus on data and innovative technology, it is the underlying enabler for any ambition to be achieved. Consider the following:

1. The Paris Agreement and non-state value chain action are multi-lateral, require vast collective action and involve competing actors. It is not possible to deliver this without sophisticated monitoring, reporting and verification instruments, coupled with robust tracking and attribution.
2. There are a wide range of instruments, from the inventory reporting of corporate value chain emissions to market and non-market mechanisms for transfers between parties. Sometimes these can be benignly double counted; sometimes they certainly cannot. It will not be possible to manage this at scale without innovative data and technology solutions.
3. Holding actors to account requires transparency and the effective attribution and communication of these accountabilities. As the targets of different actors begin to overlap it will not be possible to keep on top of achievements without innovative solutions.

In short, if collaboration needs to be met with civil society scrutiny to hold all actors to account for their performance, then it is essential that normative systems accurately and transparently track all emissions data and attribute it correctly. This is where the technologies, data solutions and governance that CLI has advocated for and tested must become the norm. Finally, it would be an error not to consider the call for greater inclusivity and greater equity of access. All the above points to a technocratic system, administered by new technology that not everyone understands. Civil society must also ensure credible, transparent governance of and equitable access to these new essential systems in meeting its responsibility to the world.