Climate diplomacy has gone freelance. Multilateralism must adapt, not disappear

The recent London Climate Action Week revealed that while formal climate multilateralism remains under strain, climate diplomacy is becoming more diffused, implementation oriented and focused on delivering security.

Expert comment

Published 13 July 2026 — 5 minute READ

Image — The ‘Climate Changed Oak Tree’ in Kew Gardens, London, on 22 June 2026 at the start of London Climate Action Week. Photo by Brook Mitchell / AFP via Getty Images.

Dr Beatrice Mosello

Senior Research Fellow, Environment and Society Centre

Pelin Zorlu

Senior Research Fellow Lead, Climate and Energy, Environment and Society Centre, Chatham House

As much of Europe emerged from a record-breaking heatwave that closed schools, disrupted businesses and exposed the limits of adaptation even in some of the world’s wealthiest economies, London Climate Action Week (LCAW) took on particular salience. While the impacts of climate change were unfolding in real time, more than 75,000 participants from across the world attended over 1,300 events to debate the future of global climate action.

The central takeaway was not simply renewed urgency. It was that climate diplomacy is changing shape and that climate action is happening. 

In recent years, many have questioned the effectiveness of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The slow pace of consensus-based negotiations and the limited progress made at its annual COP summits have led some to argue that climate multilateralism is dead, or at least on life support. 

Governments must adapt to a world in which climate leadership is defined by implementing practical solutions through coalitions.

LCAW is not itself a formal multilateral forum, but it did offer an important window into how climate diplomacy more broadly is evolving. It highlighted that alongside multilateral negotiations, complementary forms of international climate cooperation that focus on implementation and coalition-building are growing in importance. 

Climate leadership is becoming less about grand declarations and more about sustained credibility and action. As geopolitical tensions reshape energy markets, trade, security priorities and development pathways, much of the practical work is increasingly taking place outside traditional multilateral channels. 

Governments remain essential actors, but they now operate within a much broader ecosystem of cities, businesses, financial institutions, philanthropists and civil society. LCAW pointed to how climate diplomacy is becoming more diffuse – and arguably more suited to the current fragmented geopolitical era. Three shifts stood out.

Climate security looms large

First, climate security has become an increasingly central part of the climate conversation. The recent Strait of Hormuz crisis is a stark reminder that today, geopolitical instability, energy security and the transition away from fossil fuels are increasingly intertwined, reinforcing the need to strengthen resilience while accelerating climate action. 

Increasingly, climate change and biodiversity loss are recognised as interconnected security challenges, as reflected for example in the UK government’s recent national security assessment on global ecosystems. As a result, climate is no longer being treated as a standalone environmental issue but as part of a broader nexus of environmental change driving risks across security, economic resilience and public health. 

The UK’s new Climate Security Taskforce, launched during LCAW, is a case in point. The taskforce brings together leading experts to advise the government on how to tackle growing climate threats.

The taskforce helps cement the UK’s leading role in shaping climate security thinking. The UK first recognized climate change as a core national security challenge in its 2008 National Security Strategy. More recently, the National Security Strategy 2025, Strategic Defence Review 2025 and the launch of the taskforce demonstrate how this framing has become increasingly embedded in the UK’s national security planning.

Other governments are also increasingly explicitly treating climate change as a national security issue. Germany’s 2023 National Security Strategy recognizes that ‘our international and security environment … is increasingly defined by the existential threat posed by the climate crisis’. France’s 2022 National Strategic Review, Australia’s 2024 National Defence Strategy and Japan’s 2022 National Security Strategy all integrate climate into assessments of national resilience, strategic risk and economic security. This trend is here to stay.

Shift towards practical delivery 

Second, the conversation is shifting from climate commitments to their implementation, with increasing emphasis on practical measures that deliver multiple benefits beyond emissions reductions.  

Climate action is becoming more explicitly linked to building resilience, strengthening energy security, enhancing industrial competitiveness and supporting economic growth. Discussions on the energy transition are increasingly centred on competitiveness, industrial strategy and electrification initiatives. This reflects a growing recognition that fossil fuel dependence is itself a strategic vulnerability and that resilient, diversified energy systems are central to long-term security. 

At LCAW, this shift was captured by the launch of the Electrify Now initiative – a coalition of governments and non-government organizations backed by the European Commission, the UK, Turkey, Australia, Ethiopia, and others. By promoting electrification across transport, buildings and industry, the initiative frames electrification not simply as a climate objective, but as a strategy for energy security, economic competitiveness and resilience. In doing so, it translates ambitious climate goals into concrete implementable actions with clear economic and strategic benefits. 

At the same time, water and nature have emerged as entry points for building resilience. Water is beginning to receive the strategic attention it deserves. In many regions, water stress is already driving instability, yet shared water resources can also provide opportunities for cooperation and diplomacy. This is illustrated by transboundary river basins such as the Mekong or the Senegal, where competing national interests coexist with sustained diplomatic engagement and institutional cooperation. 

Likewise, nature is increasingly understood as a way of strengthening resilience rather than a conservation issue alone. There is growing recognition, particularly in the financial sector, that nature-related risks are financially material and can impact asset prices, credit systems and macroeconomic stability. Emerging analysis of systemically important ecosystems such as the Amazon, Congo Basin and Southeast Asian rainforests highlights how their degradation could create macro-economic risks, making nature a core pillar of financial and economic security.

Beyond COP: the rise of coalitions of the willing

Third, climate diplomacy is moving away from the focus on annual COP conferences to become more widely distributed and implementation oriented. 

The UNFCCC process remains indispensable. But delivering the transition will increasingly depend on smaller ‘coalitions of the willing’ and sector-specific partnerships. These can move faster, test practical solutions and build momentum, creating a ‘race to the top’ on climate action. Examples already exist across trade, finance and infrastructure, from the Climate Club and the Bridgetown Initiative to regional infrastructure partnerships as in the case of the North Seas’ Power Hub. 

Climate leadership is becoming less about grand declarations and more about sustained credibility and action.

The added value of these forums lies in creating space for more practical and politically candid discussions than is often possible in formal negotiations at COPs. By moving contentious issues such as fossil fuel transition into smaller, action-oriented forums, initiatives like the Santa Marta process have demonstrated how international dialogue and cooperation can be strengthened. 

Indeed, one of the growing challenges for governments is not a lack of initiatives but deciding which partnerships and sectoral efforts to prioritise, given limited political and administrative capacity. 

Lessons ahead of COP31

Ahead of COP31 in November 2026, the key question remains how climate diplomacy can deliver greater security in a more fragmented geopolitical landscape.

Governments must adapt to a world in which climate leadership is defined by implementing practical solutions through coalitions of governments, businesses, investors, cities and civil society in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the best available science. 

International climate cooperation should focus on identifying, financing and scaling solutions that have already proven effective, such as restoring degraded forests and mangroves through community-led conservation programmes. Pursuing and measuring real-economy outcomes are a fundamental part of the next Global Stocktake process under UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

Formal climate multilateralism and smaller coalitions of the willing, or other plurilateral approaches, are not alternatives; they are complementary. While formal processes provide legitimacy, shared direction and accountability, complementary partnerships can help translate collective ambitions into practical action and tangible results. 

The success of COP31 – and climate action going forward – will therefore be measured not only by new commitments, but by its ability to reinforce the international cooperation that delivers greater security and prosperity for people globally.