The evolution of the Global Climate Action Agenda - Implications for universities

Marrakech Partnership 2.0

By the time of the Chilean Presidency in 2019, the Marrakech Partnership was due a revisit. At COP25, parties asked the Climate Champions to explore how they might enhance the Partnership and make it “fit-for-purpose”. In response the Climate Champions for Chile and UK – Gonzalo Muñoz and Nigel Topping (very much the Lennon and McCartney of the NSA world, and the first two Climate Champions drawn from the private sector) - delivered a new “Improved Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action for Enhancing Ambition”, with a framework that emphasised campaigning and a shift toward championing quantifiable commitments and alignment with 1.5°C pathways. It included the creation of two major campaigns: the Race to Zero and the Race to Resilience. These served as mechanisms for mobilising and aligning NSA action through commitments on emissions reduction and climate resilience.

The new approach brought greater strategic clarity to the Partnership’s work. It introduced the Climate Action Pathways — roadmaps outlining sector-specific actions and milestones — and the 2030 Breakthroughs, which target key tipping points across critical systems based on 20% of actors making a commitment to halve net zero emissions by 2030. Efforts to broaden engagement with stakeholders in developing countries were stepped up through the creation of regional hubs and closer involvement in the UNFCCC’s Regional Climate Weeks.

From a higher education perspective, universities were explicitly included for the first time through the Race to Zero (RtZ) for Universities and Colleges campaign. While this was a welcome development, the initiative focused solely on one aspect of the sector’s climate contribution: institutional net zero emissions plans. At the same time, the earlier recognition of education as a cross-cutting theme within the Partnership was dropped.

The Improved Marrakech Partnership set the direction of travel for the following years. While major developments such as the Sharm El-Sheikh Adaptation Agenda, the Global Stocktake, and the UAE Consensus have influenced the focus and priorities of the Climate Champions, the core structure introduced in 2020 has largely remained in place.

A narrowing of focus

In recent years there’s been a move towards closer alignment between the Marrakech Partnership’s stated priorities and those of the COP Presidencies.

The 2024 Marrakech Partnership Work Programme (under the UAE and Azerbaijan) explicitly cites “the emerging priorities of the COP29 Presidency” as a guiding principle, and its focus on implementing outcomes from COP28 and the first Global Stocktake reflects a growing emphasis on situating its work within the broader UNFCCC agenda.

The 2025 Marrakech Partnership Work Programme takes this a step further – and marks the clearest shift yet toward a more directive model. It aligns almost entirely with the Brazilian COP30 Presidency’s 30 key objectives, and introduces  “activation groups” to coordinate delivery on each one. This is arguably the most institutionalised integration of COP Presidency priorities into the Marrakech Partnership to date.

For universities, there’s good news: education is back on the agenda. Although no longer a cross-cutting theme, it now appears under the broader umbrella of “Fostering Human and Social Development”, grouped with capacity-building and job creation.

The message is clear: if you want impact, align efforts. But it also signals a departure from the more open, bottom-up model that originally characterised the Partnership. Where previously there was space for a wide diversity of initiatives to shape the agenda, the focus is now more narrowly defined by a set of deliverables determined by the priorities of the incoming Presidency.

Is this a problem?

Strategically, no. Focus is not inherently bad. Any effective strategy requires prioritisation - making choices, allocating resources, and aligning activities. The 2025 programme is a sign of maturity—a shift from mobilisation to implementation.

But we must be cautious. When systems narrow, something is always left behind. The inclusive, decentralised spirit that marked the early years of the Partnership – one that welcomed a broad ecosystem of actors and initiatives - may be harder to sustain in a landscape organised around top-down priorities. Groups and sectors not explicitly tied to the 30 objectives may find themselves relegated to the margins.

Furthermore, the membership process for the Marrakech Partnership remains unclear, which can limit participation. Initially, involvement was centred on engagement with the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA), a platform launched under the Lima Climate Action Agenda to showcase climate efforts. Later, more formal procedures were introduced, but the extent to which these processes were imbedded is questionable.

The Marrakech Partnership was never supposed to be everything to everyone. But if this space is meant to reflect, support and amplify the full range of global climate action, then it begs the question: what (and who) might we be missing?

What this means for higher education

As the Partnership becomes more focused and delivery-driven, there is a growing risk that complex, cross-cutting institutions like universities are overlooked and underutilised. They don’t fit neatly into any single objective or thematic silo. As a result, universities are still largely seen through the lens of operational decarbonisation—primarily via initiatives like Race to Zero for Universities and Colleges. While that work is important, it only captures a fraction of what the sector can offer. Our contributions to research, innovation, policy development, and public engagement — not to mention our role in training the next generation of climate leaders — are rarely acknowledged or embedded in the formal architecture of the Partnership.

The good news is that we don’t need to wait for permission to act. Over the last decade, universities have built strong international networks—from the International Sustainable Campus Network to the Global Alliance of Universities on Climate. The Higher Education Climate Network of Networks (co-convened by myself at Cambridge and Kristy Faccer at the University of Toronto) exists to connect these efforts and interface with the broader non-state actor ecosystem.

But to help maximise the impact of university initiatives, to ensure broad and diverse institutional engagement, and to cultivate closer international collaboration with other civil society actors, we need formal recognition of our unique contribution within the Partnership framework. That means clearer entry points, deeper engagement, and more ambitious integration of universities into global climate delivery efforts.