Daily report for 15 November 2025

Many groups and parties took the floor during the closing plenary of the Subsidiary Bodies to express their disappointment over the state of the negotiations on technology, research, and gender. The Presidency laid out the plan for continued negotiations during the second week of the conference.   

Stocktaking Plenary

In the evening, COP 30/CMP 20/CMA 7 President André Corrêa do Lago informed delegates of the way forward during the second week of the conference. He explained that negotiations will continue in three tracks that will inform one another: ministerial consultations on issues that would benefit from political guidance; further technical work on outstanding issues, to conclude on Tuesday, 18 November; and continued Presidency consultations, including on cooperation with other international organizations. 

Ministerial consultations will convene on:

• matters relating to the Global Stocktake (GST), co-facilitated by Andreas Bjelland Eriksen (Norway) and another minister to be confirmed;
• the Global Goal on Adaptation, co-facilitated by Rohey John Manjang (The Gambia), and Jochen Flasbarth (Germany);
• finance, co-facilitated by Ed Miliband (UK) and Deborah Mlongo Barasa (Kenya);
• mitigation, co-facilitated by Sara Aagesen (Spain) and Wael Aboulmagd (Egypt);
• just transition, co-facilitated by Alicia Bárcena (Mexico) and Krzysztof Bolesta (Poland);
• technology, co-faciliated by Chris Bowen (Australia) and Bhupender Yadav (India); and
• gender, co-faciliated by Maisa Rojas (Chile) and Helena Dyrssen (Sweden).

Presidency consultations will continue to convene on: nationally determined contributions (NDCs), biennial transparency reports (BTRs), Paris Agreement Article 9.1 (developed countries’ finance provision obligation), and unilateral trade-restrictive measures (UTMs). Views expressed thus far will be captured in a summary note to guide further discussions.

President Corrêa do Lago announced that a “Mutirão” at ministerial and heads of delegation level will convene early in the second week, after hearing reports back from the ministerial co-facilitators. Parties endorsed this approach. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell urged Parties to “find each other in the hallways” and to “give a little so [they] can get a lot.”

The COALITION FOR RAINFOREST NATIONS stressed the need to leave Belém with a roadmap to zero deforestation by 2030.

Presidency Consultations on NDCs, BTRs, Article 9.1, and UTMs

Túlio Andrade, COP 30/CMP 20/CMA 7 Presidency, invited Parties’ views on the second and third of three broad themes to guide discussions: “from negotiations to implementation: Paris Agreement policy cycle fully in motion”; and “response to urgency, accelerating implementation, solidarity and international cooperation.”

The ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS) proposed: inviting full implementation of 2030 NDCs and strengthening 2030 targets in the updates to current NDCs; encouraging Parties that have submitted ranges to urgently move to the upper end of their ranges; and ensuring support for developing countries to fulfil their conditional NDCs.

AOSIS, supported by the LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs), UK, PANAMA, GEORGIA, and others, proposed strengthening the COP 28, COP 29, and COP 30’s “Roadmap to Mission 1.5°C.” The AFRICAN GROUP called for tripling adaptation finance in line with the amounts set out in the NDC Synthesis Report and stressed that any roadmap must include not only mitigation but also adaptation and finance. The ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP (EIG) supported a “Belém 1.5°C action plan” on ambition, which is bottom-up, collaborative, and respects countries’ sovereignty. JAPAN supported: encouraging those who have not submitted their NDCs and BTRs to do so; and recognizing that international cooperation includes a combination of bilateral and multilateral cooperation. SINGAPORE suggested that Article 6 can be used to reinforce ambition.

The AFRICAN GROUP further urged addressing barriers such as UTMs and intellectual property rights. 

The ARAB GROUP called for an immediate end to all UTMs and for affirmation that all developing countries are eligible to receive funding under the UNFCCC process. Supported by the AFRICAN GROUP and LMDCs, they also proposed launching a three-year “Belém work programme on implementation of Article 9.1,” which includes loss and damage financing and a common accounting methodology for reporting. NEW ZEALAND called for affirming that Parties should cooperate in promoting an open economic system that respects World Trade Organization rules.

The INDEPENDENT ALLIANCE OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (AILAC) called for identifying specific thematic roadmaps linked to the required means of implementation, such as roadmaps for addressing deforestation and for transitioning away from fossil fuels. The ARAB GROUP opposed targeting any sector, such as the energy sector. The EU proposed: mapping the Global Goal on Adaptation activities against the Global Stocktake (GST) outcomes; a follow-up to the just transition work programme; accelerated implementation of NDCs and implementation of the GST outcomes; and a phaseout of fossil fuel subsidies. With NEW ZEALAND, they supported annual consideration of NDC and BTR synthesis reports.

AUSTRALIA proposed: inviting countries to consider developing NDC implementation and investment plans; and establishing a dialogue on practical opportunities to implement NDCs and increase ambition, that engages both Parties and non-party stakeholders. THE GAMBIA cautioned against establishing new obligations, such as implementation plans, highlighting that experience shows “strategies without support are doomed for failure.”

Finance 

Standing Committee on Finance (SCF): During COP/CMA informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Hendrikje Reich (Germany) and Debra-Lee Swanepoel (South Africa) introduced draft COP and CMA decision texts and invited Parties’ views on them.

GRUPO SUR opposed reference to specific emerging technologies, stating this would be too restrictive. The LDCs supported developing a joint work plan towards delivering the new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG) and reporting on the delivery in the next biennial communications.

Regarding text requesting the SCF to track delivery of the NCQG, the AFRICAN GROUP underlined the need for an ex-post assessment of NCQG delivery. The EU and CANADA pointed out the NCQG decision already contains tracking requirements and opposed this request. The EU also opposed requesting the SCF to calculate the cost of the needs identified in the biennial assessments, noting this is already being done through the developing countries’ needs determination reports.

The AFRICAN GROUP proposed changing “investing in” climate resilient agriculture to “financing.”

The Co-Facilitators invited written submissions to inform the revision of the draft texts.

Global Environment Facility (GEF): In a COP/CMA contact group, Co-Chair David Kaluba (Zambia) introduced draft COP and CMA decision texts and invited Parties’ views on the texts. 

The ARAB GROUP, LMDCs, and SOUTH AFRICA opposed inviting “countries in a position to do so” to contribute to the GEF replenishment. SWITZERLAND supported the reference and JAPAN suggested inviting G20 members to contribute.

AOSIS and the LDCs expressed disappointment that the planned GEF replenishment pledging meeting was cancelled because of limited developed country interest. Noting that the GEF is not a bank, the AFRICAN GROUP expressed concern about references to “innovative financing instruments,” stressing such terms could raise challenges for developing countries.

The Co-Chairs will revise the draft texts.

Adaptation Fund: In the SBs’ closing plenaries, SBI Chair Gardiner proposed to forward this item to CMP 20 and CMA 7 for further consideration. TÜRKIYE and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION stressed that they do not accept any classification other than those contained in the annexes to the UNFCCC. The EU, supported by the UK, underlined the importance of the Fund having a fully functioning Board and said its proposed terminology would align the Fund with the Paris Agreement. The LMDCs said they were “disappointed” to see that some countries continue to link institutional arrangements of the Fund to the terminology issue, saying those are separate issues and urged Parties “not to hold institutional arrangements hostage.”

Third High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on Climate Finance: Opening this mandated event, COP 30 President André Corrêa do Lago emphasized that the international finance architecture must be made fit to support climate action in developing countries, with mechanisms that properly assess risks, including the cost of inaction, and offer fair access to finance. He underscored there is no lack of resources, but they need to be redirected to support low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development, underscoring it is a matter of political will, institutional readiness, and global solidarity.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell highlighted that climate finance helps turn ambition into implementation, but underscored it is not yet sufficient, reliable enough, and shared widely and fairly enough, especially with regard to adaptation. He urged reducing transaction costs so that finance reaches those who need it most.

Annalena Baerbock, President of the 80th Session of the UN General Assembly, acknowledged that, despite the Paris Agreement’s tenth anniversary, the world is not in a celebratory mode, considering the increasing headwind against multilateralism. She urged reflection, engagement, and solidarity to stand up to this headwind. She underscored the success of the Paris Agreement, especially in pushing renewable energy development, noting that solar is now the cheapest energy source in history, but its potential is not yet fully tapped, especially in Africa where it is needed the most. She emphasized that climate action and social justice must go hand in hand and urged the full implementation of the new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG). 

Jim Skea, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), noted the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report will again feature a chapter dedicated to mitigation finance, tracking flows by channel, instrument, and sector, and will, for the first time, feature a chapter on adaptation finance, including effectiveness and access. 

The ensuing discussion touched upon, among others:

• calls for developed countries to deliver their fair share of climate finance and submit plans for delivering on the NCQG;
• calls for tripling adaptation finance and tripling resources for the LDC Fund;
• the need to reduce the cost of capital;
• measures such as levies on polluting sectors, guarantees in local currency, and debt swaps;
• predictability and responsiveness to developing countries’ priorities; and
• enhancing enabling environments, including in terms of institutional stability.

Mitigation

Mitigation Work Programme: The SBs agreed to forward this matter to CMA 7, taking into account the informal note prepared at SB 63.

Paris Agreement Article 6.4 (crediting mechanism): In CMA informal consultations co-facilitated by Kate Hancock (Australia) and Sonam Tashi (Bhutan), Parties considered an informal note containing a draft CMA decision. Several Parties cautioned against “micro-managing” the Supervisory Body and urged allowing the Body to undertake its technical work.

The COALITION FOR RAINFOREST NATIONS encouraged a focus on other major emission sources rather than forests, noting the existence of a separate and robust mechanism to address forest-related emissions. They also supported focusing on economy-wide and sectoral efforts. The LMDCs and ARAB GROUP opposed the section on NDCs in the text, noting this is beyond the group’s mandate.

Paris Agreement Article 6.8 (non-market approaches): The SBSTA adopted conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2025/L.6).

Emissions from international aviation and maritime transport: The SBSTA noted its continued consideration of this item and agreed to continue consideration of this matter at SBSTA 64 (June 2026).

Adaptation

Global Goal on Adaptation: The SBs agreed to the SB Chairs’ proposal to forward this matter for further consideration by CMA 7 on the basis of draft text. URUGUAY emphasized it is time to consolidate options rather than adding new options to the text. 

National adaptation plans: The SBI agreed to forward this matter for consideration by COP 30 on the basis of the draft text prepared at SBI 63.

Matters related to LDCs: The SBI adopted conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.16) and recommended draft decisions later adopted by the COP (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.16/Add.1) and CMA (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.16/Add.2).

Report of the Adaptation Committee: The COP and the CMA welcomed the report (FCCC/SB/2025/7).

Loss and Damage

2025 joint annual report of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Santiago Network: The SBs adopted conclusions (FCCC/SB/2025/L.6).

2024 Review of the WIM: The SBs agreed to forward this matter to the governing body or bodies for consideration at the session(s) in November 2025, taking into account the informal note prepared at SB 63.

Global Stocktake

Dialogue on implementing the Global Stocktake outcomes (referred to in paragraph 97 of decision 1/CMA.5): The SBI agreed to forward this matter to CMA 7 for consideration on the basis of the informal note prepared at SBI 63.

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-Facilitators Noura Alissa (Saudi Arabia) and Kaarle Kupiainen (Finland) welcomed Parties’ views on a revised informal note.

The EIG, UK, EU, AOSIS, and AILAC affirmed their preference for highlighting substantive elements from the 2024 and 2025 summary reports in the draft text, including: how parties are being informed by the outcomes of the GST in the preparation of their NDCs; the urgency of keeping 1.5°C within reach and addressing the NDC ambition and implementation gaps; enhanced international cooperation; and the need for enhanced provision of means of implementation to developing countries, particularly on access to finance. The LMDCs, ARAB GROUP, and AFRICAN GROUP opposed the inclusion of any substantive elements.

CHINA, supported by the ARAB GROUP, requested legal clarification on the timeline for future Dialogues, noting there is ambiguity around the mandate for continued annual Dialogues. The EIG welcomed clarification on the matter but noted there is no ambiguity and that the mandate is for an annual Dialogue. At the request of the LMDCs, the Secretariat presented the budgetary implications of holding future Dialogue sessions.

The LMDCs requested a chapeau at the beginning of the informal note that emphasizes the text has been prepared by Co-Facilitators under their own responsibility, has no formal status, and does not represent agreement among Parties. The Co-Facilitators, recognizing Parties have not agreed on the way forward and that divergences remain on all aspects, will report back to the Presidency. 

Procedural and logistical elements of the Global Stocktake process: The SBs agreed to forward this matter to CMA 7 for consideration on the basis of draft text prepared at SB 63.  

Reporting

Provision of financial and technical support for Non-Annex I Parties’ reporting under the Convention: The SBI adopted conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.13/Rev.1).

Term, composition, terms of reference, and report of the Consultative Group of Experts (CGE): The SBI adopted conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.18). After the Secretariat’s presentation of the budgetary implications of decisions taken by SB 63, the AFRICAN GROUP asked for assurances that the CGE would be properly funded to carry out its activities, noting that financial constraints had prevented the CGE from conducting its regular regional hands-on training workshops in 2025.

Report of the administrator of the international transaction log under the Kyoto Protocol: The SBI recommended a draft decision on guidance relating to registry systems under Kyoto Protocol Article 7.4, later adopted by the CMP (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.12).

Provision of financial and technical support to developing countries for reporting and review under the Paris Agreement: The SBI agreed to forward this matter to CMA 7 for further consideration, taking into account the informal note from SBI 63 containing elements of a draft decision.

Technology 

Joint annual report of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and Climate Technology Centre and Network: During the SBSTA closing plenary, SBSTA Chair Ayebare noted that Parties were unable to come to an agreement on this matter and that, in line with Rules 10(c) and 16 of the draft rules of procedure, this item will be included in the SBSTA 64 agenda. The G-77/CHINA proposed continuing considerations at SB 64 on the basis of an informal note elaborated at SB 63, but there was no agreement on this. 

The G-77/CHINA highlighted the overall progress made on technology items, hoping for productive discussions on the linkages between the Technology and Financial Mechanisms at SB 64, and on the Climate Technology Centre’s (CTC) review and the technology implementation programme (TIP) during the second week of the conference. They stressed the need for a stronger CTC to ensure technology transfer and urged operationalizing the TIP to close capacity gaps and implement technical priorities of developing countries identified in the GST. 

During the COP/CMP/CMA plenary, CHILE reiterated the G-77/China’s call to continue discussions on the basis of the informal note from SB 63.

Review of the functions of the Climate Technology Centre: The SBI agreed to continue consideration of this matter at COP 30 and CMA 7 for further guidance on the basis of the draft text prepared at SBI 63.

Linkages between the Technology Mechanism and the Financial Mechanism: During the SBI closing plenary, SBI Chair Gardiner noted that Parties were unable to come to an agreement on this matter and that, in line with Rules 10(c) and 16 of the draft rules of procedure, this item will be included in the SBI 64 agenda. During the COP/CMP/CMA plenary, CHILE urged not to lose progress made in Belém.

Technology Implementation Programme: The SBI agreed to forward this matter to CMA 7 for further guidance on the basis of the draft text prepared at SBI 63.

Other Issues 

Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP): The SBs agreed to forward this matter for further consideration by CMA 7, taking note of the informal note prepared at SB 63. After the Secretariat’s report on budgetary implications of decisions taken by SB 63, EGPYT lamented that insufficient financial resources hindered the ability of developing countries to participate in the annual dialogues under the JTWP and called for enhanced financial support for the JTWP. They also noted the delayed publication of the dialogue reports, suggesting the Secretariat allocate more human resources to this issue.

Response measures: The SBs noted they could not conclude consideration of this matter and agreed to forward this matter to COP 30, CMP 20, and CMA 7 for further guidance taking into account the draft text prepared at SB 63.

Gender: The SBI agreed to forward this matter to COP 30 for further consideration on the basis of the draft text prepared at SBI 63. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION underscored that not all Parties’ views were adequately reflected in the draft text. The EU stressed it cannot accept “backsliding” on agreed language, whether in footnotes or other forms. 

Capacity-building: The SBI recommended, and the COP and CMA later adopted decisions on the annual technical progress report of the Paris Committee on Capacity-building for 2025 (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.19 and FCCC/SBI/2025/L.17, respectively). The SBI also recommended, and the CMP adopted, a decision on the terms of reference for the fifth comprehensive review of the implementation of the framework for capacity-building in developing countries under the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.15). On the fifth review under the COP, the SBI agreed to continue consideration of the matter at SB 64, taking into account the draft text prepared at SBI 63 with a view to recommending a draft decision for consideration by COP 31 (November 2026).

Agriculture: The SBs adopted conclusions (FCCC/SB/2025/L.5).

Research and systematic observation: The SBSTA adopted conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2025/L.8).  CHILE, AUSTRALIA, BANGLADESH, NEW ZEALAND, the UK, CANADA, and the EU expressed disappointment over the lack of a references to the IPCC providing the best available science and to key climate events over the past years, including the warmest years on record, melting glaciers, and record carbon dioxide concentrations. NEW ZEALAND stressed concern over the inability to reach an agreement on science at this “COP of truth.” 

The ARAB GROUP lamented the lack of reference to the challenges faced by developing countries when accessing funds under the Systemic Observation Financing Facility and the Green Climate Fund, citing the case of Oman, whose proposal was “rejected by developed countries.” IRAN called for strengthened support and the removal of constraints to accessing financial resources for improving observation systems and scientific capacity in developing countries.   

Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE): The SBI recommended a draft decision, which the COP and CMA later adopted (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.9).

Cooperation with other international organizations: The SBSTA took note of the submissions made by Parties and observers prior to, and views expressed by Parties during, SBSTA 63. Recognizing Parties’ interest in continuing consideration of this matter, the SBSTA agreed to forward it to COP 30 for further consideration, taking into account the SBSTA Chair’s note on areas of interest and submissions made during SBSTA 63.  

Arrangements for intergovernmental meetings: The SBI adopted conclusions (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.14). The EU said it had expected more detailed guidance on this item and urged the UNFCCC Secretariat and presiding officers to follow the SBI’s invitation to pursue efficiency when preparing for SBI 64, in particular with regard to the preparation of the provisional agendas. ETHIOPIA thanked Parties for the support to their bid for hosting COP 32.

Budgetary, financial, and institutional matters: The SBI recommended draft decisions on administrative, financial, and institutional matters, later adopted by the COP (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.11) and the CMP (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.10). The CMA endorsed the decision adopted by the COP. With regard to the budget of the Kyoto Protocol’s international transaction log, the SBI agreed to forward this matter to CMP 20 for further consideration, taking into account the draft text prepared at SBI 63.

Other matters: The SB Chairs noted they had provided a report back to SB 63 on their consultations on Paris Agreement Article 9.1 and said they will convey concerns raised during the report back to the Presidency. With this, they stated their mandate in this regard is concluded.

Closure of the SBs: The SBI and SBSTA adopted their reports (FCCC/SBI/2025/L.20 and FCCC/SBSTA/2025/L.7). The Secretariat advised on the budgetary implications of the decisions taken by the SBs and called on Parties to provide the requisite supplementary budget for these activities. The SBs closed at 2:03 pm. 

In The Corridors

At the mid-conference point, it was time for negotiators to re-emerge from the nitty-gritty textual work underway in many negotiation rooms and take stock of overall progress as the Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) concluded their work. But the bigger picture remained an impressionistic sketch at best. Though delegates managed to put the finishing touches to some elements, many others exhibit only rough contours so far—often captured in heavily bracketed text that will inform discussions in the second week.

Discontent was on display during the SBs’ closing plenary, with several countries expressing dismay over the state of negotiations on items such as research, gender, and technology. “The COP of truth is turning out to be a big con if we cannot even agree on acknowledging climate science and combatting misinformation,” fumed an observer in relation to the discussions on research.

While the Brazilian ministers for the environment and for Indigenous Peoples made notable appearances at what is rumoured to be the largest ever Peoples’ Summit march of any climate meeting, other nations’ ministers were entrusted with the difficult task of fostering progress on the host of issues that evade agreement at the technical level. “I hope they have some tricks up their sleeves,” remarked an observer, keen to recharge their battery over a bowl of açaí at one of the many riverside restaurants nestled by the lush rainforests around Belém.