Daily report for 12 November 2025

Negotiations continued their course, including a three-hour long session on just transition and various sessions on finance. Discussions on the mitigation work programme and the annual Dialogue on how the Global Stocktake (GST) informs the preparation of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) once again showcased deep fault lines. 

Stocktaking Plenary

In the afternoon, the President of the 30th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 30) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), André Corrêa do Lago, updated delegates on the Presidency consultations on issues relating to the Synthesis Report on NDCs, biennial transparency reports (BTRs), the implementation of Paris Agreement Article 9.1 (developed countries’ provision of climate finance), and unilateral trade-restrictive measures (UTMs). He reported Parties have engaged in open and honest discussions in the spirit of “Mutirão” and that progress has been achieved in enhancing Parties’ understanding of one another’s perspectives. He stated that, following requests for more time, the Presidency consultations will continue to provide Parties with a safe space to co-create solutions, and another stocktaking plenary will be held on Saturday, 15 November.

Substantive Negotiations

Presidency consultations on NDCs, BTRs, Article 9.1, and UTMs: During the consultations facilitated by Túlio Andrade, COP 30/CMP 20/CMA 7 Presidency, Parties continued providing their views on potential outcomes.

The INDEPENDENT ALLIANCE OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (AILAC) supported a delivery plan that ensures a balanced outcome between ambition and means of implementation (MoI) by: providing a dedicated space for addressing the NDC Synthesis Report; and operationalizing the new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG) through, among others, burden-sharing arrangements, support for the tripling of annual finance outflows from the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism, and removal of disenablers. They stressed the plan should recognize the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on obligations of states in respect of climate change, noting it affirms that cooperation is a legal obligation.

The AFRICAN GROUP proposed: an Article 9.1 work programme that includes work on a burden-sharing arrangement; and a system for Parties wishing to adopt UTMs to provide advance notice to the UNFCCC, with the Secretariat to compile such notifications to inform Parties’ consideration thereof.

The LIKE-MINDED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (LMDCs) suggested a three-year work programme that culminates in enhanced climate action through implementation of Article 9.1. On UTMs, they supported a dedicated agenda item.

The Presidency then invited Parties’ views on the conduct of the Presidency consultations. While some parties appreciated the format and structure, others lamented insufficient time and space to discuss their proposals. GRUPO SUR suggested that the Presidency prepare a synthesis report of the consultations.

Standing Committee on Finance (SCF): In a COP/CMA contact group, Co-Chairs Hendrikje Reich (Germany) and Debra-Lee Swanepoel (South Africa) pointed to: the SCF’s report (FCCC/CP/2025/9–FCCC/PA/CMA/2025/13), which includes the SCF’s 2026 workplan and outlines of the seventh biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows report and the third report on progress towards the USD 100 billion goal; and the summary of the 2025 SCF Forum on food systems (FCCC/CP/2025/9/Add.4–FCCC/PA/CMA/2025/13/Add.4). They invited views on elements to be captured in decision text.

Many delegations welcomed steps taken towards monitoring the NCQG, with AILAC emphasizing the need to respond to all its elements. The AFRICAN GROUP expressed concern that the SCF has yet to start its work on the seventh review of the Financial Mechanism, underscoring the SCF does not have the authority to reject the mandate provided by COP 23. KENYA and ETHIOPIA called for the SCF to assess progress on the doubling of adaptation finance.

The ARAB GROUP and LMDCs said the report on the 2025 SCF Forum does not adequately reflect discussions held at the event, with the LMDCs noting it focuses on mitigation and glosses over adaptation and the importance of means of implementation. . The AFRICAN GROUP called for clarification of how the SCF handles the involvement of SCF members representing Paris Agreement non-parties in CMA-related work.

The Co-Chairs invited written submissions to inform the preparation of draft texts.

Adaptation Fund: In the CMP contact group, Co-Chair Koosje Beumer-van der Loo (the Netherlands) invited views on the Adaptation Fund Board’s annual report for 2025. Developing countries expressed concern over the Fund’s limited resources and urged developed countries to scale up adaptation finance. SWITZERLAND emphasized the importance of diversifying funding sources. 

Delegates welcomed progress made, including with regard to gender mainstreaming, increases in country caps, and the establishment of a locally-led adaptation window. The EU and SWITZERLAND urged addressing outstanding items, such as updating the environmental and social policy, and developing a policy on safeguarding against sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment. Noting several seats on the Fund’s Board are vacant, the EU encouraged nominations from the relevant groups. The AFRICAN GROUP and the ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS) called for mutual recognition of entities accredited under other funds. The ARAB GROUP urged focus on underserved regions. 

In the CMA contact group co-chaired by Isatou Camara (The Gambia), the AFRICAN GROUP suggested requesting the Board to report on support provided in relation to the Global Goal on Adaptation and the full implementation of national adaptation plans (NAPs). AILAC called for the Board to prepare a strategy on tripling annual outflows. 

The Co-Chairs invited written submissions to inform the preparation of draft CMP and CMA decision text. 

Dialogue on finance flow alignment (Paris Agreement Article 2.1c): In a CMA contact group, Co-Chair Zaheer Fakir (UAE) pointed to the 2025 annual report and synthesis of work conducted in 2023-2025 (FCCC/PA/CMA/2025/10) and invited views on: work undertaken thus far; and the CMA’s further engagement with the matter. 

The GROUP OF 77 AND CHINA (G-77/CHINA) noted there is no common interpretation of Article 2.1c and its complementarity with Article 9. With the AFRICAN GROUP and ARAB GROUP expressing concern over the Green Climate Fund Board’s recent rejection of a proposal by Oman, the G-77/CHINA emphasized it is vital to address safeguards against access barriers. Developing country groups opposed a one-size-fits-all perspective on finance flow alignment, with the AFRICAN GROUP pointing to a pathways approach to the implementation of Article 2.1c, with timeframes and instruments differing across countries. On future engagement, AOSIS considered it premature to set up high-level ministerial discussions.

Various groups supported mandating the co-chairs to prepare a draft decision text, using the report’s recommendations as a basis. The ARAB GROUP objected, emphasizing the need to address safeguards against access barriers before considering any future engagement on the matter. Discussions continued in the evening.

Seventh review of the Financial Mechanism: Opening the COP contact group, Co-Chairs Ricardo Marshall (Barbados) and Jori Keijsper (the Netherlands) recalled the lack of agreement on the review persisting since COP 26 and, noting their hope to make the discussions “as painless as possible,” invited views on parties’ expectations. 

The AFRICAN GROUP recalled that COP 23 decided to initiate the seventh review at COP 26, urging developed countries to abide by this decision. They noted the guidelines for the sixth review apply and emphasized the need to ensure the SCF provides expert input to the review as mandated. They reiterated their suggestion that parties to the Paris Agreement submit views to be considered in the review.

The EU, UK, AUSTRALIA, SWITZERLAND, and CANADA emphasized the need to reflect the role of the CMA in the review, with the EU noting it had submitted a compromise proposal to this effect at COP 28. They called for engagement on this or other possible compromise proposals. The AFRICAN GROUP and ARAB GROUP denounced developed countries’ blockade of the review, with the AFRICAN GROUP stating the EU’s proposal is not a compromise and suggesting to permanently hold this matter in abeyance, as no progress is in sight.

The Co-Chairs will consult the Presidency on the way forward. 

Mitigation Work Programme: In SB informal consultations co-facilitated by Maesela John Kekana (South Africa), Parties continued reflecting on possible elements for a draft text.

On preambular paragraphs, AOSIS and AILAC highlighted recalling keeping 1.5°C within reach and, with the EU, relevant GST outcomes. The ARAB GROUP and INDIA rejected linkages to the GST.

On improvements, the ARAB GROUP shared views relating to improving investment-focused events, emphasizing their usefulness. AOSIS called for ensuring MWP outcomes are actionable, equitable, and responsive to the needs of the most vulnerable. Lamenting that the MWP has not delivered on its mandates, TUVALU called for an improved MWP that is inclusive and ambitious. Regarding a proposed digital platform, the ARAB GROUP expressed openness to using existing platforms, specifically the Non-market Approaches Platform.

On the global dialogue outcomes, the UK, NEW ZEALAND, and SINGAPORE, among others, supported highlighting key messages, with NEW ZEALAND echoing the ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP (EIG) in calling for a strong outcome on forests. With the ARAB GROUP and SOUTH AFRICA underscoring the need for non-prescriptive text, SWITZERLAND suggested there is a precedent for reflecting key messages in a non-prescriptive way. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION and the LMDCs opposed singling out individual messages.

Parties’ views diverged on the need for a process regarding the continuation of the MWP, including a call for submissions. AUSTRALIA, opposed by INDIA, EGYPT, and SAUDI ARABIA, suggested this is in line with previous decisions. The LMDCs lamented Annex I countries’ lack of ambition and leadership, and noted the MWP’s mandate is not to “force” Parties to enhance their mitigation targets or have the same level of ambition, which the EU said is not the intention.

The co-facilitators will capture parties’ views in an informal note.

Emissions from international aviation and maritime transport: In SBSTA informal consultations co-facilitated by Angélica Romero (Chile) and Jakob Wiesbauer-Lenz (Austria), countries heard reports from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) Secretariats.

CHINA urged the ICAO to focus on implementation and called for methodologies for monitoring and reporting on progress towards the ICAO’s net-zero goal to be tailored to country and regional levels, not just the global one. In response, ICAO stressed the increasing importance of implementation rather than formulation of technical guidance and standards, and highlighted several financial match-making and capacity-building initiatives.

The EU and AUSTRALIA expressed concern about the adjournment of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee special session tasked with adopting the IMO Net-Zero Framework. PARAGUAY said that the Framework would effectively impose a global carbon tax and runs counter to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. They urged “cooperative, incentive-based measures” instead of a punitive approach and called for a complete revision of the Framework. The ARAB GROUP welcomed the adjournment as an opportunity to foster consensus on the Framework.

The co-facilitators tabled draft procedural conclusions acknowledging discussions at SBSTA 63 and continuing them at SBSTA 64, which Parties endorsed.

Global Goal on Adaptation: In SB informal consultations, Co-Facilitator Gao Xiang (China) invited views on an informal note. 

Regarding a section on general reflections on the list of indicators, AUSTRALIA, with the UK, warned that the text reads overly negative. With regard to disclaimers about the indicators, TÜRKIYE highlighted that transboundary indicators should not put additional obligations on national governments, while GRUPO SUR opposed reference to specific indicators.

On the conclusion of the indicator work programme, GRUPO SUR, AILAC, AUSTRALIA, the EIG, and the UK voiced their preference for adopting the list of indicators at CMA 7. Various other countries emphasized the need for further work on the indicators post-CMA 7 and made detailed proposals in this regard. GRUPO SUR and AILAC said the Adaptation Committee should lead further methodological and technical work, but not refine the indicators.

GRUPO SUR stressed its support for the decision to define a new adaptation finance goal, opposed by the UK, who preferred discussions to focus on the indicators. AILAC remarked that it is premature to discuss draft decision text before finalizing the indicator list.

The ARAB GROUP expressed its disappointment with the mode of work, saying they would have preferred addressing divergences directly in informal informals.

National adaptation plans: In SBI informal consultations co-facilitated by Antwi-Boasiako Amoah (Ghana), Parties agreed to use the draft text forwarded by SBI 62 as the basis of their discussions. The ARAB GROUP said language on MoI should focus on “provision and mobilization” of adaptation finance from developed to developing countries and opposed language on “all sources of finance” and “private sector finance.” MAURITANIA lamented that the lack of MoI threatens to turn the NAP process into a “theoretical exercise” and called for a dedicated adaptation finance window under the Financial Mechanism. The EU, supported by AUSTRALIA, urged focusing on the existing text and avoiding the inclusion of new elements.

Parties subsequently started proposing textual edits to the draft text.

Report for 2024 and 2025 on the annual Dialogue on the GST informing NDC preparation (referred to in paragraph 187 of decision 1/CMA.5): In CMA informal consultations co-facilitated by Kaarle Kupiainen (Finland) and Noura Al-Issa (Saudi Arabia), many delegates expressed disappointment that no agreement had been found on this matter in 2024. AOSIS, the EU, LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs), CANADA, and the UK suggested “welcoming” the reports, with the AFRICAN GROUP and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION preferring to “take note.” 

Several groups and Parties highlighted specific messages from the Dialogue sessions to be reflected in the draft text, which was opposed by the LMDCs, who preferred a procedural outcome.

The EIG, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, and NORWAY urged continuation of the annual Dialogue, and, with AILAC, AOSIS, and the LDCs, emphasized it is a crucial platform for knowledge exchange and supporting implementation. The LMDCs stated that the Dialogue has fulfilled its mandate.

The co-facilitators will prepare an informal note to inform further discussions. 

Provision of financial and technical support to developing countries for reporting and review under the Paris Agreement: In SBI informal consultations, Co-Facilitator Sandra Boitumelo Motshwanedi (South Africa) introduced a draft set of activities for the next three years to support the effective implementation of the Enhanced Transparency Framework by developing countries. Parties discussed the activities in informal informals.

Technology Implementation Programme (TIP): In SBI informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Elfriede More (Austria) and Omar Alcock (Jamaica) invited views on draft decision text.

While delegates agreed on the structure of the document, they flagged gaps in capturing previously expressed views. The G-77/CHINA called for ensuring the TIP contributes to converting technical priorities into fundable projects. The AFRICAN GROUP noted lack of focus on adaptation, with the ARAB GROUP similarly noting lack of language on UTMs and of references to the TIP being under both the Convention and Paris Agreement. The UK highlighted language on implementing the GST outcomes, especially the energy package, with the ARAB GROUP objecting to “cherry picking” paragraphs of the GST decision.

The G-77/CHINA requested a new draft text, including on the basis of new written submissions, before further engagement. NORWAY and SWITZERLAND objected to new written submissions, citing transparency concerns. The co-facilitators invited further expressions of views during the next session of informal consultations.

Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP): In an SB contact group, Co-Chairs Federica Fricano (Italy) and Joseph Teo (Singapore) invited input on ways to contextualize the JTWP, drawing on the annual report summarizing the third and fourth dialogues (FCCC/SB/2025/10), which respectively focused on: adaptation; and just energy transition pathways and holistic approaches to just transitions.

Debates mainly centered on energy transition. The EU, AILAC, AOSIS, EIG, UK, NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, URUGUAY, CANADA, and INDONESIA supported more extensive language on facilitating universal access to clean, reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy that includes “scaled-up deployment of renewable energy, access to clean cooking, energy security, and socio-economic opportunities of transitioning away from fossil fuels.” The AFRICAN GROUP, LMDCs, and TÜRKIYE supported text on energy which only emphasizes clean cooking. Citing the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the obligations of states in respect of climate change, AILAC and YOUTH NGOs (YOUNGO) underscored that climate action is a legal obligation, and with the EIG, EU, NEW ZEALAND, MARSHALL ISLANDS, and INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS emphasized phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. AOSIS and NEW ZEALAND stressed that shifting from fossil fuels can simultaneously promote energy security and enhance energy reliability. The ARAB GROUP and LMDCs stressed that fossil fuels mean energy security, with LMDCs also emphasizing development and poverty reduction. 

The UK, AOSIS, EU, and YOUNGO called for an explicit link between decarbonization and the 1.5°C goal. If retained, the LMDCs insisted on an exact reference to the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal and to the importance of MoI for achieving it.

Other comments related to, among others: diversifying and ensuring reliable and just mineral supply chains; labor rights, upskilling and reskilling, and social protection; Indigenous Peoples’ Free Prior Informed Consent and right to voluntary isolation.

Delegates agreed to continue discussing these matters, and the proposal to establish institutional mechanism, in informal informals. 

Gender: In SBI informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Carol Franco (Dominican Republic) and Jared Huntley (Australia) introduced a document with draft decision text and a revised draft gender action plan (GAP). Parties noted the limited time to review the document and emphasized the need for further discussions in informal informals. SAUDI ARABIA, the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, and IRAN stated that the text contains several controversial elements that they would not be able to accept.

The EU requested an estimate of budgetary implications. The Secretariat noted that they will prepare a full estimate of budget implications once there is certainty on what the deliverables will be.

YOUNGO underscored that the GAP must reflect a shared commitment to inclusivity, intersectional experiences, and diversity in all forms. WOMEN AND GENDER urged parties to reflect on the lives of the women they represent rather than the red lines their governments set.

Discussions continued in informal informals.

Capacity-building: During SBI informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Binyam Yakob Gebreyes (Ethiopia) and Georg Børsting (Norway) introduced draft text for COP and CMP decisions on the annual technical progress report of the Paris Committee on Capacity-building for 2025. They also invited comments on the informal note from SBI 62 containing the terms of reference for the fifth comprehensive review of the implementation of the capacity-building framework under the Kyoto Protocol. 

Considering the completion of the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period in 2020, JAPAN reiterated their position that the capacity-building under the Protocol should be concluded. The ARAB GROUP asserted this is premature, as negotiations on the Article 6.4 Mechanism are ongoing. The co-facilitators requested Japan and the Arab Group to draft consensus text.

In The Corridors

As delegates strolled into the venue under the sweltering morning sun, little reminded them of the tumultuous scenes that had erupted the night before when unbadged protesters stormed the Blue Zone and tussled with UN Security. A least developed country negotiator saw the incident “as a sign that people want to be heard.” Others were less amused, saying that the disruption “is turning people away from what are legitimate grievances.” At any rate, the protestors’ calls for the protection of forests echoed in many places. The Environmental Integrity Group specifically pointed to the negotiations on the Mitigation Work Programme, which recently held an event on the matter, as an opportunity for the Brazilian Presidency to facilitate a meaningful outcome on deforestation. 

The lack of a dedicated space for key concerns shook up the usual negotiation dynamics. Deprived of a clear home in the meeting’s agenda, the push for tripling adaptation finance transpired across several rooms—sometimes at the cost of progress on other issues. “We are now getting the bill for the missed opportunity to include a dedicated adaptation finance subgoal in last year’s climate finance goal,” said one negotiator, adding: “Good thing there is still sufficient time for things to fall into place.”