Leaders gathering in Turkey for the UN climate summit face a question that cannot be settled by the gathering itself: can another round of negotiations bring climate promises closer to practical action? The distinction matters when evaluating the talks. An agreement about what governments intend to do should not, on its own, be treated as evidence that they will do it. Nor should the distinction between intention and execution, by itself, settle the argument against negotiation. A useful standard is to judge the talks alongside evidence of what happens beyond the meeting.

The immediate picture is one of climate efforts falling short, with both doubt and hope about what the annual process can accomplish. The information available here supplies no quantified assessment of that shortfall, specific negotiating proposals or positions attributed to individual participants. That limits any verdict on the Turkey summit and prevents a reliable comparison between particular governments’ arguments. The useful analytical question is therefore narrower: under what conditions could annual talks help close the gap, and under what conditions might they merely give that gap another diplomatic expression?

One argument worth examining concerns coordination, although the available information does not establish how it operates at these talks. Does governments’ willingness to act depend partly on what they expect others to do, and can a common negotiating process make those expectations clearer? Could a commitment set out before other participants become a reference point against which subsequent decisions are assessed? These questions suggest an evaluative standard broader than whether a summit produces an immediate breakthrough. An assessment could also ask whether intended action becomes more explicit, comparable and open to challenge, without assuming that those changes have occurred.

Read more: Japan’s $550 billion U.S. pledge tests continuity after Trump’s midterm setback

A corresponding question concerns the difference between making a promise and carrying it out. If participants were to claim success through an agreed text without demonstrating the means to implement it, what evidence would distinguish substantive progress from its appearance? An assessment of repeated meetings should likewise distinguish a new undertaking from evidence that an earlier one has been fulfilled. Under this approach, scrutiny would focus not simply on opportunities to negotiate, but on the connection between diplomatic commitments and the decisions required to honour them.

These questions address different functions and should not be treated as simple opposites. Is negotiation necessary for an agreed direction, and what else would delivery require? Equally, a disappointing outcome should not, by itself, be taken as proof that coordination has no value. The test should distinguish between what the talks are intended to organise and what participants would subsequently need to execute. An assessment should avoid crediting the process with action that has not been demonstrated, or judging it against responsibilities that have not been established. Neither approach would provide a sound basis for a verdict.

A credible evaluation would also separate ambition from evidence. A stronger promise should be assessed as a change in stated intention, separately from any practical results. A more detailed undertaking should be examined for what it specifies, rather than treated as proof of improved accountability or outcomes. Conversely, evidence of implementation should be assessed against the commitment it was intended to fulfil, rather than treated as sufficient simply because something had happened. Without comparable figures or details of commitments, the available information cannot establish how much of the present shortfall a new pledge or negotiating breakthrough would address.

Read more: Europe joins U.S.-mediated Russia-Ukraine peace effort in Abu Dhabi

The annual rhythm raises a further question about the process’s value. Does returning to the same questions provide opportunities to revisit weak commitments, examine delivery and press for clearer explanations? That is one way to test whether continuity represents an asset rather than simply repetition. An evaluation should ask whether unfinished business remains visible from one gathering to the next. It should also distinguish fresh announcements from evidence about earlier commitments, rather than assume that an expanding catalogue of intentions constitutes a record of delivery.

Balance therefore requires more than giving equal space to confidence and scepticism. An optimistic interpretation should identify a plausible route from agreement to implementation; a sceptical interpretation should explain whether its objection is to negotiation itself or to how success is defined. Those are materially different objections. Whether a process that cannot guarantee delivery nevertheless improves its prospects is a question for evidence, not an assumption to build into the verdict. Nor should the possibility of improvement become a defence against scrutiny. With climate efforts described as falling short, the appropriate response is to seek evidence of usefulness rather than presume either success or failure.

For the summit in Turkey, the next questions should concern substance rather than atmosphere: what is being promised, how would it be carried out, and what evidence would allow the outcome to be assessed? These are standards for evaluating the summit, not claims about measures already proposed or agreed. Clear answers would provide material for examining whether annual negotiations connect collective intention with practical decisions. Vague answers should not be treated as evidence of delivery, even if participants were to find language acceptable around the negotiating table.

The most defensible conclusion is that the available information does not establish how effective these talks will be. Annual climate negotiations should neither be dismissed on the basis of the broad shortfall alone nor treated as successful merely because leaders continue to meet. An evaluation should ask whether they clarify commitments, identify shortcomings and are followed by action, without presuming those results. As leaders gather in Turkey, expectations should remain distinct from findings. Whether the summit narrows the distance between commitment and execution must be judged by evidence beyond the fact that negotiations took place.