Daily report for 18 June 2025

Delegates launched substantive negotiations in a constructive atmosphere, trying to make up for time lost due to the delayed adoption of the meeting agendas. Negotiations on the mitigation work programme were especially heated and adaptation discussions highlighted the importance of means of implementation.

Adaptation

Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA): In SB informal consultations co-facilitated by Tina Kobilšek (Slovenia) and Zita Wilks (Gabon), parties exchanged views on: the consolidated list of indicators to track progress towards the GGA (FCCC/SB/2025/3); and a technical paper on transformational adaptation (FCCC/TP/2024/8). 

Parties agreed that further refinement was necessary to reach a list of roughly 100 indicators, but disagreed on the approach for doing so. The AFRICAN GROUP and INDEPENDENT ALLIANCE OF LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (AILAC) emphasized the importance of indicators tracking means of implementation (MoI). AUSTRALIA expressed a “dislike” for MoI indicators that distinguish between developing and developed countries, while JAPAN opposed any indicators measuring financial flows from developed to developing countries. The EUROPEAN UNION (EU) proposed viewing enablers holistically, including capacity building and institutional arrangements. The AFRICAN GROUP, with AILAC, opposed indicators tracking domestic budget allocation and official development assistance, whereas AUSTRALIA considered them important to track national adaptation processes and cautioned against a “political takeover” of the technical process.

Parties converged on a globally applicable list of headline indicators, complemented by a more context-specific set of sub-indicators to pick and choose from. They reflected on work leading up to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 7) in Belém, including timelines for the finalization of the experts’ work and intersessional workshops.

On transformational adaptation, GRUPO SUR said the topic is not sufficiently mature for an event to be convened in 2025. AUSTRALIA emphasized capturing the issue of transformational adaptation in a decision to be adopted in Belém. The EU suggested focusing all efforts on advancing the work on indicators.

Informal consultations continued in the evening.

Guidance Relating to Adaptation Communications: In SBI informal consultations, co-facilitated by Thomas Lerenten Lelekoiten (Kenya) and Marie Wien Fjell (Norway), parties reflected on the guidance on adaptation communications. Many underlined the importance of fostering synergies and avoiding duplications between different reporting processes under the Paris Agreement.

JAPAN suggested revising the guidance to better link to the GGA and the Global Stocktake (GST). AILAC called for further training courses to build capacity for national adaptation reporting. The EU, supported by CANADA, proposed postponing the review of the guidance until 2028, after the review of the Enhanced Transparency Framework’s modalities, procedures, and guidelines. GRUPO SUR suggested revisiting the guidance at the 31st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and called for the Adaptation Committee’s draft supplementary guidelines to be finalized. The RUSSIAN FEDERATION suggested returning to this item closer to the second GST (GST-2).

The LIKE-MINDED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (LMDCs) called for support for developing countries to be addressed more explicitly in the updated guidance. The ARAB GROUP cautioned against drafting universal templates and said adaptation communications should feed into the GST, not the other way around.

The AFRICAN GROUP expressed disappointment that only five parties made submissions to inform the synthesis report on this item (FCCC/SBI/2025/9) and, supported by CANADA and SAUDI ARABIA, called for further submissions. 

National Adaptation Plans (NAPs): In SBI informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Antwi-Boasiako Amoah (Ghana) and Oliver Gales (Australia), invited views on draft text from CMA 6. The GROUP OF 77 AND CHINA (G-77/CHINA) welcomed the integration of NAP progress indicators in the GGA. The EU underscored the importance of having NAPs in place by 2025. Pointing to the draft text, parties highlighted their priorities for what to address in a decision. The co-facilitators invited parties to engage informally on the way forward.

Matters related to Least Developed Countries (LDCs): Informal SBI consultations were co-facilitated by Ephraim Shitima (Zambia) and Rik den Hoedt (Netherlands). The LDC Expert Group (LEG) provided a report (FCCC/SBI/2025/7) about its work. Parties expressed their appreciation for the LEG’s assistance to developing countries in formulating and implementing NAPs.

The LDCs noted with “profound disappointment” that many of them continue to face barriers in accessing finance for formulating and implementing NAPs, stressing the lack of resources is “not just frustrating but demoralizing.” The EU, CANADA, and NORWAY highlighted their commitment to close these gaps. 

Countries generally welcomed the LEG’s draft updated technical guidelines for the NAP process, though the EU, supported by CANADA, expressed concern over inconsistencies between the updated technical guidelines and the iterative adaptation cycle of the NAP process. SAUDI ARABIA lamented the time lag between the consultation of parties and the corresponding revisions in the updated technical guidelines.

The co-facilitators will prepare draft text.

Mitigation

Mitigation Work Programme (MWP): During SB informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Ursula Fuentes (Germany) and Maesela John Kekana (South Africa) said discussions at SB 62 will focus on:

• how to make the MWP a “safe space” for overcoming implementation barriers and exploring actionable solutions;
• views on the creation of a digital platform to facilitate implementation of mitigation actions; and
• elements of a draft decision for consideration at CMA 7.

The ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS) underlined the MWP is not delivering on its mandate to scale up mitigation ambition and implementation to achieve the 1.5°C target and called on major emitters to act with urgency. AILAC lamented the lack of any substantial outcome from the five dialogues held under the MWP so far. They urged aligning the MWP with the GST outcomes, and noted the need to discuss key emission drivers.

INDIA stressed the MWP is not failing and highlighted that while many developing countries already have ambitious targets they are not receiving sufficient support to achieve these. The AFRICAN GROUP, LMDCs, and ARAB GROUP emphasized the MWP must not set any new targets, with the PHILIPPINES noting the MWP should be a space for enhancing international cooperation.

The EU called for dedicated political space and decision at CMA 7 to discuss and respond to the nationally determined contributions (NDC) synthesis report with a view to scaling up ambition. They highlighted substantial messages from the GST as an essential element. 

The ARAB GROUP opposed sending political signals, stressing the MWP is a practical knowledge exchange platform. The LMDCs said discussions should focus on consensual issues, such as the need to optimize the global dialogues. QATAR said a safe space is created when parties can share their experiences without fear their words will be used against them to impose new commitments. AUSTRALIA urged respecting one another’s position and opposed any “finger pointing.” The EIG called for supporting countries to advance their domestic mitigation work in critical areas.

Informal consultations will continue.

Dialogue on Paris Agreement Article 6.2 (cooperative approaches): In this mandated event participants reflected on the role of Article 6.2 in implementing NDCs and raising ambition, and the engagement of the private sector. The Secretariat then highlighted that ten cooperative approaches, for which initial reports have been submitted, are undergoing or have completed the technical expert review process. As areas where inconsistencies were most identified, they pointed to, among others: arrangements for authorizing and tracking Internationally Transferable Mitigation Outcomes, and methods for applying corresponding adjustments. They also noted the communication standards supporting interoperability between registries under Article 6 will be published by the end of June.

Emissions from fuel used for international aviation and maritime transport: During the SBSTA informal consultations, co-facilitated by Jakob Wiesbauer-Lenz (Austria) and Francis Mwangi (Kenya), parties heard reports on the work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Maritime Organization (IMO). Following a brief exchange, parties agreed on procedural conclusions stating that SBSTA 62 considered this matter and SBSTA 63 will continue its consideration.

Loss and Damage

Joint annual report of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and the Santiago Network: In SB informal consultations, co-facilitated by Pasha Carruthers (Cook Islands) and Cornelia Jaeger (Austria), parties expressed a desire to prioritize discussions on the WIM review. Building on a proposal by the G-77/CHINA, parties mandated the co-facilitators to prepare a short draft decision text.

2024 Review of the WIM: In SB informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Cornelia Jaeger (Austria) and Pasha Carruthers (Cook Islands) invited parties’ views on elements to be included in draft decision text. While noting that it does not represent agreed text, the G-77/CHINA proposed to reflect the headings in the informal note from COP 29. Parties mandated the co-facilitators to prepare draft decision text and continued discussions in informal informals.  

Finance

Presidency Consultations on the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap: Opening the event, COP 29 President Mukhtar Babayev called on shareholders to foster the engagement of multilateral development banks in mobilizing USD 1.3 trillion in climate finance. COP 30 President-designate André Aranha Corrêa do Lago highlighted the role of the COP 30 Circle of Finance Ministers in supporting the development and implementation of the roadmap. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell emphasized that finance is the bedrock of trust in the process. Developing countries urged streamlining access procedures and speeding up disbursement. Among other comments:

• the G-77/CHINA said the roadmap should address disenablers of climate finance and provide a clear agreement on burden sharing among developed countries;
• AOSIS underscored the need for context-specific interventions to respond to the special circumstances of small island developing States (SIDS), and called for specific disbursement targets for SIDS;
• the ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY GROUP said the roadmap should provide recommendations on the concrete application of non-debt-creating instruments, best-practice examples on enhancing financial inclusion, and addressing resource mobilization for nature-based solutions;
• AILAC called for defining the responsibilities of the various actors that will contribute to the USD 1.3 trillion target and tracking progress in its delivery; 
• the LDCs called for targets on grant-based finance and tripling adaptation finance, and emphasized the need to track the implementation of the roadmap;
• the ARAB GROUP urged investment in carbon capture and storage, called for better tracking of the contribution of philanthropies in de-risking private investment, and identified revenue streams developed countries could leverage to enhance climate finance, such as taxes on financial transactions and luxury fashion brand sales;
• the AFRICAN GROUP underscored support to address loss and damage and just transition, including with regard to clean cooking;
• the LMDCs emphasized the country-driven nature of climate action and urgency to ensure fiscal space in developing countries; and
• the EU said the roadmap should serve as a platform to inform and involve external stakeholders, building on existing initiatives.

Dialogue on the scope of Paris Agreement Article 2.1c and its complementarity with Article 9: The second day of the workshop under the Dialogue focused on transition planning in diverse contexts. Presentations addressed issues such as: sustainable transportation; the role of public development banks; investors’ expectations towards governments on adaptation planning; and the adverse impacts of fossil fuel production on local communities. Participants highlighted, among others: challenges related to investor-state dispute settlements; colonial economic structures; and the need to consider energy security and economic development.

Global Stocktake

Dialogue on implementing the Global Stocktake outcomes, referred to in paragraph 97 of decision 1/CMA.5: In SBI informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Ricardo Marshall (Barbados) and Patrick Spicer (Canada) noted there had been no agreement on this matter at CMA 6 and pointed to the Presidency’s text from that session, highlighting elements on the dialogue’s modalities.

The EU, AUSTRALIA, and the UK called for a broad scope that spans all elements of the GST decision and reflects progress in implementing it, with AUSTRALIA and others stressing the dialogue should not be “just a talk shop.” The LMDCs said the dialogue must not track GST outcomes in a manner that contradicts the nationally-determined nature of NDCs. They opposed referencing the dialogue as the only place to implement the GST outcomes, noting implementation must also take place in the real world and be expressed in countries’ NDCs. AUSTRALIA stressed the need to leverage all available means to advance the implementation of all GST outcomes, including the dialogue.

Many parties supported holding the first session of the dialogue at CMA 7, and subsequently annually during the June Subsidiary Body meetings. AOSIS and the LDCs noted the mandate specifies the dialogue continues until 2028, while SOUTH AFRICA and others considered the dialogue runs until 2026.

On outputs, AUSTRALIA proposed a report of each dialogue session, which includes a synthesis of key messages, and consideration of the reports by the CMA.

Procedural and logistical elements of the GST: In SB informal consultations, co-facilitated by Patrick Spicer (Canada) and Kishan Kumarsingh (Trinidad and Tobago), parties reflected on the informal note from CMA 6.

On sources of scientific input, AOSIS, LDCs, the AFRICAN GROUP, AILAC, the UK and others, opposed by the LMDCs and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, highlighted the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the main source of scientific information for the GST. They supported requesting the IPCC to align the timing of its assessment reports with the GST process and opposed calls for “balancing IPCC and non-IPCC sources,” while noting the relevance of other sources. CHINA underlined the need for a diversity of scientific input. The LMDCs stressed that scientific information must include local knowledge and developing country sources.

On scope, AOSIS and the LDCs called for addressing loss and damage as a standalone thematic area within the GST. The AFRICAN GROUP underlined the importance of international cooperation. TUVALU called for a tangible follow-up to the expert dialogue on the disproportionate impact of climate change on children. The LMDCs opposed any reference to a GST-2 follow-up, while AILAC opposed any language that precludes the establishment of a GST follow-up mechanism.

The EU and the UK, opposed by INDIA and CHINA, suggested allowing overlap between the technical and political phases of the GST.

Other Issues

Just Transition Work Programme: During the SB contact group, Co-Chairs Federica Fricano (Italy) and Joseph Teo (Singapore) invited parties’ views, noting that no agreement was found on this matter at CMA 6 and pointing to the Presidency’s text from that session.

The G-77/CHINA noted the group is also mandated to discuss unilateral trade measures. The ARAB GROUP highlighted measures to address and mitigate the impact of unilateral measures as a key cross-cutting issue, and said that addressing unilateral measures does not undermine progress under other elements.

The AFRICAN GROUP emphasized reflecting the diversity of national priorities and development pathways, and stressed the need for international cooperation, technology transfer, and finance, with KENYA noting that the text focuses too much on national dimensions of just transition. The LMDCs urged a move away from “profit-centered” approaches. In terms of key messages, they highlighted countries’ different starting points, the historical responsibility of developed countries, and the need for support for just transition. Stressing that just transition is cross-cutting across different sectors, the EU called for incorporating whole-of-society and whole-of-economy approaches. They supported language that encourages parties to include just transition pathways in the development and implementation of their NDCs and NAPs.

Technology Implementation Programme (TIP): In SBI informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Elfriede More (Austria) and Omar Alcock (Jamaica) recalled that the TIP was established in the GST decision and that the mandate at SBI 62 is to advance the TIP’s elaboration on the basis of the draft text prepared at CMA 6.

The G-77/CHINA supported holding global technical dialogues and regional forums, emphasizing the need for reports from the events and for these to be considered at subsequent negotiating sessions. CHINA suggested setting quantified goals and indicators to evaluate the performance of the TIP. Many supported an evaluation of the TIP after five years, feeding into the GST.

NORWAY emphasized the TIP needs to deliver on paragraphs 28 and 29 of the GST decision (the call to contribute to 1.5°C-aligned mitigation efforts, and recognition of the role of transition fuels, respectively). The EU urged delivering on paragraph 28 and said the TIP should work hand-in-hand with the MWP, among others. They emphasized gender responsiveness, promoting Indigenous technologies, and fostering enabling environments, including through sustainable finance taxonomies and technology standards.

The ARAB GROUP said the TIP must align with developing countries’ technology priorities, noting paragraph 28 does not fully speak to these. They emphasized unilateral trade-measures are barriers to technology transfer and that the GST does not supersede previous agreements or obligations. 

The AFRICAN GROUP said the TIP should respond to the technology needs assessments, with the LDCs emphasizing the need for resources to do so.

Matters relating to Capacity Building: In SBI informal consultations, Co-Facilitators Cristina Carreiras (Portugal) and Binyam Yacob Gebreyes (Ethiopia) highlighted as key objectives at SBI 62: initiating the fifth comprehensive review of the implementation of the capacity-building framework established under the Convention, on the basis of the terms of reference (ToRs) developed at COP 29; and developing the ToRs for the fifth comprehensive review under the Kyoto Protocol.

The G-77/CHINA called for a renewed, responsive, and well-resourced framework to address the needs of developing countries. The LDCs suggested that it also take into account latest developments under the Paris Agreement. Comments also related to, among others: the need for adequate financial support; enhancing technical expertise in climate data analysis; institutional capacity building; indicators to track support received; and ensuring the retention of capacities built.

The co-facilitators will prepare draft text.

Research and Systematic Observation: In SBSTA informal consultations co-facilitated by Patricia Nyinguro (Kenya) and Frank McGovern (Ireland), parties reflected on elements to be included in draft conclusions. Various parties expressed concern that none of the presenters in the breakout sessions at the 17th session of the Research Dialogue came from a developing country, and noted the need to strengthen the research capacities and address the research needs of developing countries.

CHILE, supported by KENYA, proposed elaborating a mechanism to identify progress towards closing knowledge gaps after each IPCC assessment cycle. AOSIS lauded advances in attribution science. BRAZIL called for greater consideration of Indigenous knowledge in research and observation. 

The EU, supported by the LDCs, UK, and AUSTRALIA, highlighted that every increment of warming matters. The ARAB GROUP cautioned against “alarmist language” about the state of the climate. CHINA noted that temperature projections are scenario-based and carry inherent uncertainties.

The co-facilitators will prepare an informal note.

In the Corridors

The conference rooms and corridors were brimming with life as delegates were finally able to dive into substantive negotiations. Such was the enthusiasm that it occasionally exceeded room capacities, with negotiators having to stand or sit on the floor for lack of seating space.

The eagerness to make up for time lost was quickly frustrated by divides between parties’ positions on items such as the mitigation work programme. Many debates raised doubts about the extent to which the Global Stocktake outcomes will be implemented. “Clearly, some countries are not intending to contribute to global efforts to transition away from fossil fuels,” noted a disappointed delegate, leaving technology negotiations. 

The contrast between those discussions and the testimony of a “cancer valley” resident was stark. The former refinery worker highlighted how his home had become a “sacrifice zone” for the expansion of liquified natural gas production. In a similar vein, Least Developed Countries alerted delegates to the importance of enhanced adaptation finance, “This is a matter of survival, dignity and development for us.