Daily report for 11 November 2025

While delegations provided their opening statements, substantive negotiations launched on a variety of issues, including matters related to mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Presidency continued consultations with a view to identify a way forward on several of the contentious topics that were not included in the negotiations agenda.

Opening Statements

The GROUP OF 77 AND CHINA (G-77/CHINA) underscored that meaningful climate action must be tailored to national circumstances. They urged a timely delivery of the new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG), underscored that USD 300 billion is insufficient to address developing countries’ needs, and called for scaling up the provision of means of implementation (MoI) to enable action at the required speed and scale.

The EU urged consideration of the synthesis reports on nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and biennial transparency reports (BTRs) to maintain momentum and keep 1.5°C within reach, noting major economies must show leadership. They also reaffirmed commitment to deliver on the NCQG and called for setting up a process to track progress on finance flow consistency (Paris Agreement 2.1c).

The ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP (EIG) noted the 2025 NDC Synthesis Report confirms the ambition and implementation gap, and lamented the lack of a dedicated space to assess collective progress and agree on follow-up action. The group underscored the need to unlock the climate finance required for ambitious NDCs that are aligned with a 1.5°C pathway and to deliver enhanced resilience. They expressed concern about pushbacks against science, underscoring the Global Stocktake (GST) must be anchored in evidence, even if the evidence is uncomfortable.

The UMBRELLA GROUP called for an outcome on the NDCs that reflects progress made and demonstrates collective commitment to close the gap to keep 1.5°C within reach. They reaffirmed the role of developed countries in leading on the NCQG in the context of global efforts, calling for taking forward the work on finance flow alignment.

The BOLIVARIAN ALLIANCE FOR THE PEOPLES OF OUR AMERICA (ALBA) urged prioritizing the right to development and poverty eradication in all climate action. They lamented attempts to renegotiate the Paris Agreement and the impacts of unilateral trade-restrictive measures (UTMs).

The LIKE-MINDED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (LMDCs) underscored that their proposal to address the implementation of Paris Agreement Article 9.1 speaks to developed countries’ legal obligation to provide climate finance, expressing hope that the Presidency consultations on the matter will bear a fruitful outcome. They cautioned against changing the architecture of the Paris Agreement, underscoring that implementation must remain guided by equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR). 

BRAZIL, SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA, AND CHINA (BASIC) called for agreement on adaptation indicators, reserving some for further technical work, as necessary. They underscored that MoI remains a key barrier to keeping the Paris Agreement goals within reach, urged remaining faithful to the Paris Agreement architecture, and called for developed countries to reach net-zero fast to release carbon space for developing countries.

The AFRICAN GROUP highlighted climate finance as a cornerstone of the implementation of NDCs, national adaptation plans (NAPs), and long-term low-emission development strategies, and urged swift capitalization of the FRLD. They said the just transition work programme cannot remain a dialogue and called for a concrete outcome delivering clean energy solutions. They noted the African region’s endorsement of Ethiopia as the host for the 32nd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 32) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2027.

The ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS) emphasized that there must be a clear follow-up on the NDCs, with leadership by major emitters. They called for a substantive outcome on the mitigation work programme, highlighting the need for concrete solutions responding to the mitigation elements of the GST decision. They called for COP 30 to deliver assurances on finance, emphasizing transparency in finance reporting, and a new adaptation finance goal.

The LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs) proposed tripling adaptation finance from 2025 levels. They said COP 30 must restore trust and lead to speedy progress, as demanded by stakeholders such as women, youth, and farmers. 

The ARAB GROUP emphasized: respecting CBDR; focusing on emissions, not sources; and enabling the technology implementation programme (TIP) to promote emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage. They opposed launching a new dialogue on finance flows alignment, noting this matter is addressed at the national level, and recalled the principles guiding the mitigation work programme, especially in terms of not imposing new goals. 

GRUPO SUR urged cooperation based on mutual trust and respect, noting UTMs should not lead to arbitrary discrimination. They called for: a new commitment on adaptation finance; support for developing countries to implement the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) indicator framework; MoI for NAPs; and progressing on the institutional framework of the just transition work programme.

The INDEPENDENT ALLIANCE OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (AILAC) underlined the importance of MoI to maximize climate action. They called for milestones and leadership in the delivery of the NCQG, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability, and for climate finance not to contribute to debt. They further stressed that the TIP should respond to national priorities.

The COALITION FOR RAINFOREST NATIONS (CfRN) said forests are essential for achieving the Paris Agreement goals and urged scaling up support to address deforestation, as highlighted in the decision on the first GST (GST-1). Regarding the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF), they underscored that reviewers should not reinterpret what parties have collectively agreed to.

NEPAL, BHUTAN, AND BANGLADESH emphasized that the 1.5°C goal is a matter of survival and urged closing the NDC ambition and implementation gap by revisiting the 2035 NDCs. They underscored the challenge of safeguarding development gains amid glacier melting and saltwater intrusion, and called for a clear pathway to USD 1.3 trillion and tripling adaptation finance.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS lamented the ongoing colonization of Indigenous territories, including through carbon trading and renewable energy infrastructure. They called for the just transition work programme to uphold international human rights and urged ensuring that Indigenous Peoples can access all forms of climate finance.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES invited parties to welcome the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) work on a special report on climate change and cities.

RESEARCH AND INDEPENDENT NGOs underscored that decision-making should be based on sound science, including social sciences and humanities, as well as Indigenous knowledge, and gave concrete examples where such knowledge was relevant for the climate negotiations.

TRADE UNION NGOs said this COP must place workers at the center of climate discussions. WOMEN AND GENDER denounced the murder and silencing of women and girls by the same system that created the climate crisis and called for the adoption of a strong gender action plan.

YOUTH NGOs supported a new adaptation finance commitment and urged mitigating the influence of the fossil fuel lobby through a UNFCCC conflict of interest policy.

BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY NGOs said the GGA must drive private investment and stressed that robust carbon markets are essential to fostering investment.

ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs said the “financialization” of life is not a solution but the problem, and called for grant-based, public climate finance.

FARMER NGOs said agriculture holds untapped potential for mitigation and adaptation and that the GGA must reflect the diversity of agrifood systems.

Substantive Negotiations

Presidency consultations on NDCs, BTRs, Paris Agreement Article 9.1, and UTMs: Túlio Andrade, COP 30/CMP 20/CMA 7 Presidency, invited delegates to provide concrete bridging proposals for how to address the four issues under consideration.

AOSIS, supported by NORWAY, AUSTRALIA, and others, proposed a “response plan” that calls for, among others: Parties who have submitted NDC ranges to move to the higher end of their ranges and for support for such Parties to enable this move; and donor countries to include finance in their NDCs.

The LMDCs proposed a work programme to foster discussion of the relationship between Paris Agreement Article 9.1 and other parts of the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, including UNFCCC Article 3.5 (supportive and open international economic system).

The EU called for deepening international cooperation to enable a transition away from fossil fuels, including cooperation on carbon market mechanisms and linking the private and public sectors. The AFRICAN GROUP suggested launching work on burden-sharing arrangements to ensure support for implementing NDCs, addressing the cost of capital, and providing a forum to consider the impacts of UTMs on NDC implementation. TUVALU proposed a dialogue on UTMs.

The EIG supported adopting an NDC roadmap, to be chaired by the Presidencies of COP 30 and 31, which invites voluntary submission of sectoral and NDC implementation plans. The ARAB GROUP called for an Article 9.1 action plan that includes common accounting methodologies and a new adaptation finance goal, to be operationalized and tracked through a work programme. AUSTRALIA urged focusing on implementation of the NCQG, noting this incorporates Article 9.1.

MEXICO proposed an agenda item on closing the ambition and implementation gap, including through enhanced international cooperation, and said this could include all four elements being discussed.

Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD): A COP/CMA contact group, co-chaired by Daniel Lund (Fiji) and José Delgado (Austria), heard parties’ views on elements for a draft decision. Several parties welcomed the rapid operationalization of the FRLD, including the launch of its first call for funding requests for the Barbados Implementation Modalities. 

The G-77/CHINA underscored the need for: a significant increase in resources; a successful first FRLD replenishment; and a request for all climate funds to have transparent financing procedures that apply equally to all parties. The LDCs called for: urging contributors to commit and fulfill ambitious new pledges that are proportional to developing countries’ needs; and prioritizing the development of modalities for rapid disbursement. Describing the FRLD replenishment as a major priority for the group, AOSIS emphasized the need to accelerate the establishment of direct access modalities. The ARAB GROUP, with the LDCs and opposed by the EU, called for referencing paragraph 16 of the NCQG decision regarding a significant increase in the provision of public resources through, inter alia, the Financial Mechanism’s operating entities. 

The AFRICAN GROUP, EU, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, and the UK called for a brief decision, giving the Board time to advance its mandate.

Adaptation Fund (AF): During SBI information consultations, Co-Facilitators Isatou Camara (The Gambia) and Koosje Beumer-van der Loo (the Netherlands) highlighted the task to consider the composition of the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB), arrangements for the AF to exclusively serve the Paris Agreement (the transition), and initiation of the AF’s fifth review. They noted Parties’ broad agreement to maintain the current AFB composition but diverging views on the terminology of AFB members. The co-facilitators introduced two documents from SBI 62: the co-facilitators’ informal note and a G-77/China conference room paper (CRP). They highlighted that the CRP splits the items under consideration into three annexes, while the informal note incorporates all three into a single draft decision text.

The AFRICAN GROUP, supported by the ARAB GROUP, LMDCs, and AILAC, expressed readiness to proceed with a decision on the transition as set out in Annex I of the CRP. The EU, SWITZERLAND, AUSTRALIA, and the UK underscored that the membership terminology is part of the transition and must reflect Paris Agreement language. They opposed splitting the issues and said the decision text must include all three elements.

ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs lamented Parties’ failure to discuss ways to scale up adaptation finance and urged the Global North to pay its climate debt, focusing on public finance, not private finance or carbon markets.

The co-facilitators will prepare a draft text based on Parties’views.

Ex ante climate finance reporting (Paris Agreement Article 9.5): During the COP/CMA contact group, Co-Chairs Isobel Bartholomew (UK) and Elena Cristina Pereira (Honduras) invited Parties’ views on elements to be included in COP and CMA decisions on this item.

On a CMA decision text, the G-77/CHINA called for a clear link between Articles 9.5 (ex ante finance reporting) and 9.7 (ex post finance reporting). The ARAB GROUP, AILAC, AOSIS, and others, opposed by the EIG, UK, JAPAN, CANADA, NORWAY, and others, proposed updating the types of information to be included in the 9.5 biennial communications, as set out in the annex to decision 12/CMA.1. They suggested, among other things, disaggregated information on adaptation and loss and damage finance, timelines, and intended recipients.

The EIG, EU, CANADA, NORWAY, and others encouraged all Parties that provide resources to developing countries to submit biennial communications on a voluntary basis to enable a clearer view of climate finance flows. The ARAB GROUP proposed formulating accounting methodologies for measuring climate finance and assessing implementation of the decision to triple climate finance outflows. The AFRICAN GROUP and ARAB GROUP called for establishing climate finance burden-sharing among developed countries.

On elements to be included in a COP decision, the G-77/CHINA reiterated their proposals under the CMA decision. KENYA called for a climate finance burden sharing arrangement for developed countries. The EU preferred language simply referring back to the CMA decision.

The co-facilitators invited parties to submit textual proposals to inform the preparation of draft text.

Mitigation Work Programme (MWP): In SB informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Ursula Fuentes (Germany) and Maesela John Kekana (South Africa) invited views, especially on: improvements to the MWP, including with regard to a digital platform; key outcomes from the fifth and sixth global dialogues and how these should be framed; and the MWP’s continuation. They pointed to their informal note from SB 62, noting it lists elements of a decision, some of which are bracketed. Parties expressed divergent views on each point. 

Many delegations questioned the development of a digital platform, pointing to the risk of duplicating existing ones and cautioning about resource implications. AOSIS considered that the mandate to exchange views on the digital platform was fulfilled at SB 62. The REPUBLIC OF KOREA, supported by AILAC, suggested such a platform could be developed under the Action Agenda rather than the MWP. The LMDCs supported the digital platform, with INDIA noting it could coalesce with the Platform on Non-Market Approaches (Paris Agreement Article 6.8).

The EIG, AUSTRALIA, the AFRICAN GROUP, AILAC, the EU, the LDCs, and others highlighted key messages from the dialogues on forests and waste they wish to include in the decision. The LMDCs preferred to simply note key findings summarized in the annual report, without including specific messages. 

Regarding the MWP’s continuation, the EIG, LDCs, AOSIS, the EU, and others supported an exchange of views at this session and a call for submissions ahead of SB 64. The LMDCs and ARAB GROUP opposed, noting the MWP review is mandated for 2026, not 2025. 

Paris Agreement Article 6.4 (crediting mechanism): In CMA informal consultations co-facilitated by Sonam Tashi (Bhutan), parties shared views on guidance to be provided to the Supervisory Body (SBM), including recommendations contained in the SBM’s annual report (FCCC/PA/CMA/2025/12). SBM Chair Martin Hession (Ireland) and Vice-Chair Maria AlJishi (Saudi Arabia) provided an oral update on the body’s work and report.

Parties congratulated the SBM for work conducted in the past year, including the adoption of various methodological standards. They expressed diverging views on the transparency of the proceedings of the SBM and its Methodological Expert Panel and on the SBM’s proposal to remove limits on SBM members’ terms, which AlJishi explained is motivated by the limited pool of technical expertise across regions.

INDONESIA expressed concerns about the baseline, leakage, and non-permanence standards in the context of nature-based and land sector activities and called for ensuring all sectors can generate Article 6.4 Emission Reductions. SWITZERLAND stated that the adopted standards do not exclude any type of projects.

COSTA RICA called for requesting the SBM to revisit the reversal risk standard with regard to a fixed, 100-year horizon to determine reversal risk. The EU outlined concerns on the reversal risk standard, calling for a consistent approach to post-monitoring and the determination of non-negligible reversal risk. In the same context, the UK called for ensuring robust standards.

NORWAY, the EU, and SWITZERLAND called for attention to securing funding for the continued operation of the Article 6.4 Mechanism.

Global Goal on Adaptation: In SB informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Gao Xiang (China) and Tine Kobilšek (Slovenia) laid out the mandate to conclude work under the work programme on indicators and on the modalities for the Baku Adaptation Roadmap (BAR).

On the GGA indicators, countries agreed that these should: be party-driven and non-prescriptive; measure collective progress rather than enable comparison between countries; feed into the GST, the ETF, and NAPs; attach no conditionalities to adaptation support; remain voluntary to report on; and avoid creating new burdens. Various parties lamented that some indicators are not aligned with prior guidance and the Paris Agreement and proposed deletion of individual indicators. The AFRICAN GROUP requested that indicators tracking thematic and dimensional targets be treated separately, with the former constituting a menu for countries to choose from and the latter being globally applicable. The EU highlighted the importance of indicator disaggregability to take cross-cutting considerations into account. Parties also called for indicators highlighting specific priorities, including mountain ecosystems and children and youth.

On indicators tracking MoI, various developing countries highlighted that financial and other support will be crucial for implementing the indicators. The LDCs, supported by GRUPO SUR, but opposed by the EU and JAPAN, called for tripling adaptation finance by 2030 compared to 2025 levels. The AFRICAN GROUP, AILAC, and the LMDCs, opposed by JAPAN, called for deleting indicators tracking domestic budget allocation, noting they shift the burden of providing adaptation finance to developing countries. PAKISTAN, with GRUPO SUR, said the indicators should better reflect the quality of and access to, in addition to the amount of, adaptation finance. The EU and JAPAN called for addressing MoI holistically with other enablers and, opposed by the ARAB GROUP, urged referencing “all sources of finance.”

Parties disagreed on the outcome to be reached in Belém, the continuation of work post-Belém, and the BAR. The AFRICAN GROUP said the technical work on the indicators should be complemented by a political refinement process and, with the ARAB GROUP but opposed by AILAC, the EU, and AUSTRALIA, among others, proposed the creation of a two-year policy process with a view to adopting a decision on the indicators at CMA 9 in 2027. The ARAB GROUP explained that the indicators are “just a draft on the wall” at the moment and opposed annexing a list of indicators to any decision taken at CMA 7/COP 30 as premature. 

The LDCs, supported by EIG, AOSIS, GRUPO SUR, and CANADA, proposed that the Adaptation Committee take a lead in the technical refinement of the indicators, including through capacity-building for including the indicators in BTRs. They also called for the LDC Expert Group to provide additional guidance on integrating indicators into NAPs. With NEW ZEALAND, JAPAN suggested that the indicator refinement and review could take place in the context of the review of the GGA Framework after the second GST in 2028. The LMDCs saw the BAR as the mechanism for countries and other stakeholders to test and revise the indicators.

CANADA proposed further work on the concept of transformational adaptation. The ARAB GROUP and INDIA opposed, saying that no individual adaptation approach should be singled out.

Just Transition Work Programme: In an SB contact group, Co-Chairs Federica Fricano (Italy) and Joseph Teo (Singapore) pointed to the informal note forwarded by SB 62 and proposed structuring the discussion around three “buckets” on: ways to contextualize the JTWP, particularly considering messages from recent dialogues; options for further implementation of the JTWP; and a placeholder on promoting international cooperation, including by addressing UTMs. Delegates started with options for further implementation of the JTWP. The G-77/CHINA suggested creating a just transition mechanism, with proposed functions including technical assistance, international cooperation and fostering partnerships, and assessing and supporting addressing implementation gaps. They suggested including a placeholder in the CMA 7 decision, stating that a draft decision on this mechanism is to be developed by SB 64 for adoption by CMA 8. 

The LDCs, supported by CANADA, suggested elaborating on a mapping exercise of relevant instruments, initiatives, and processes under and outside the Convention and Paris Agreement, noting it is relevant to the proposed mechanism.

NORWAY and the UK opposed creating additional institutions, stating it takes at least five years to fully operationalize them, and citing lack of funding for existing mechanisms, suggested building on existing institutional arrangements. 

Observers supported creating a mechanism, stressing the need to make it rights-based and participatory, with INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS citing the Santiago Network as a good example.

Gender: In SBI informal consultations, co-facilitated by Carol Franco (Dominican Republic) and Jared Huntley (Australia), the Secretariat provided a brief presentation of work conducted during the past year and invited parties to consider the gender composition report (FCCC/CP/2025/4) and the synthesis report on progress in integrating a gender perspective into constituted body processes (FCCC/CP/2025/6). Pointing to an overview of the status of implementation of mandated activities, contained in the gender composition report, parties identified priorities for further work, including: strengthening the monitoring and reporting on women in leadership positions within the UNFCCC process; encouraging knowledge exchange activities among Secretariat staff across all thematic areas; and sharing information about efforts to support the implementation of activities to enhance synergies with other UN entities and processes.

Parties mandated the co-facilitators to prepare streamlined text building on the informal note from SBI 62 and the informal summary of the intersessional workshop held in September 2025. Several groups and parties also called for the co-facilitators to recommend a new timeline of deliverables that aligns with key UNFCCC outputs. The EU noted that 92 parties endorsed a statement on gender and climate action, evidencing wide ambition to adopt the gender action plan at COP 30.

Discussions continued in informal-informals.

Research and systematic observation: In SBSTA informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Patricia Nyinguro (Kenya) and Frank McGovern (Ireland) invited views on what to include in the draft conclusions text. Parties expressed appreciation for the dialogue held during Earth Information Day on 10 November.

The EU suggested developing a chapeau text that evokes the idea that COP 30 is the “COP of truth,” by emphasizing the importance of science. Supported by NORWAY and the UK, but opposed by the ARAB GROUP and INDIA, they suggested noting the role of the IPCC in developing sound science and shaping the Paris Agreement 10 years on. The EU further noted with concern challenges faced by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and, with AOSIS, CHILE, EIG, FIJI, SENEGAL, and the UK, reinforced calls for international and sustained support of earth observation systems. 

The EU welcomed the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)’s State of the Climate Update, which noted that 2025 is on track for being the hottest on record after three years of consecutive record-breaking temperatures. The ARAB GROUP and INDIA considered the statement regarding record-breaking temperatures in 2025 to be “simply misleading.” They emphasized that the SBSTA should uphold scientific integrity, not “indulge alarmist rhetoric that is scientifically inaccurate and misleading,” and that they could not support the inclusion of language around 1.5°C warming in the chapeau. 

The Co-Facilitators will prepare an informal note.

In The Corridors

As delegates rushed across the venue on a busy first day of substantive negotiations, their physical step count far exceeded progress within the rooms. Discussions on the mitigation work programme remained as entrenched as ever. “But that is business as usual at this point,” noted a seasoned delegate.

Observers were more surprised to see some developing countries suggesting to postpone the adoption of indicators towards tracking the Global Goal on Adaptation—something widely seen as the key output of the Belém meeting. Some mused this may have less to do with the indicators as such, and more with developing countries’ push for a tripling of adaptation finance.

Bargaining is also still ongoing within the Western European and Others Group, as Australia and Türkiye maintain their bids to host COP 31. This made it all the more notable that the African region announced its endorsement of Ethiopia’s bid to host COP 32 in 2027.

After many delegates had already left for the night, news spread that activists had stormed the Blue Zone, leading to the evacuation of those remaining in the Conference venue.