Daily report for 21 June 2025

Delegates continued debating the operationalization of the technology implementation programme established in the decision on the first Global Stocktake. They also reflected on the need to enhance interlinkages with the Financial Mechanism, to ensure technology needs are met.  

Mitigation

Work Programme under the Framework for Non-Market Approaches (NMAs) referred to in Paris Agreement Article 6.8: In a SBSTA contact group, Co-Chairs Jacqueline Ruesga (New Zealand) and Nikita Charles Hamilton (the Bahamas) introduced draft text. Several parties opposed singling out specific parties, groups, regions, or sectors, and requested the deletion of two paragraphs on organizing a dedicated session at the 7th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 7) on the Joint Amazon Mechanism of Mitigation and Adaptation for Integrated and Sustainable Forest Management and enhancing its implementation. The LIKE-MINDED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (LMDCs) clarified the purpose of the event would be to showcase a project relevant to the region hosting the CMA session. The AFRICAN GROUP expressed willingness to hold events to “deep dive” into specific NMAs, but said this should be limited to registered NMAs.

Some parties also opposed adding a country filter for small island developing states and a sectoral one on forests to the NMA platform. The DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO opposed referencing Paris Agreement Article 5 (forests) in the text, noting the mandate for Article 5.2 (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) is already established and does not need to be reframed.

Finance

Matters relating to the Adaptation Fund: In informal SBI consultations, Co-Facilitator Claire Holzer Fleming (United Kingdom) introduced revised text containing elements for decisions of the COP serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) and CMA draft decisions.

The ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS) and the LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs) preferred not to defer the Fund’s review, noting the possibility of commencing it under the CMP and concluding it under the CMA. The LDCs requested legal advice from the Secretariat on any implications of this proposal. The AFRICAN GROUP and the UK favored deferring the review, while the EUROPEAN UNION (EU) expressed willingness to defer, provided the text specifies when the review will take place after the transition.

The ARAB GROUP opposed the Fund accepting contributions “from a wide variety of sources” and preferred previous language on “voluntary contributions of resources.” On the Fund Board composition, CHINA opposed a change of terminology, noting the Fund operates under the umbrella of the UNFCCC and the current terminology is from the UNFCCC.

Parties also continued considering language regarding the Trustee and secretariat service arrangements. The ARAB GROUP suggested amending the text to require “written” notification from the Trustee about the monetization of the first share of proceeds, as the trigger for the Fund exclusively serving the Paris Agreement. The AFRICAN GROUP rejected inviting the CMA to adopt a new memorandum of understanding to be concluded by the Fund’s Board and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council regarding the provision of secretariat services to the Board. Several parties, including SWITZERLAND, said it was sufficient to confirm that the secretariat services provided by the GEF to the Fund Board shall continue under the authority of the Board after the transition.

Technology and Capacity Building

Linkages between the Technology Mechanism (TM) and the Financial Mechanism (FM): In SBI informal consultations co-facilitated by Peter Govindasamy (Singapore) and Céline Phillips (France), parties discussed draft COP decision text.

The GROUP OF 77 AND CHINA (G-77/CHINA) underscored that the issue linkages between the TM and the FM was particularly relevant for the replenishment of the GEF and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and recalled the inclusion of technology-relevant guidance to the GCF in the relevant COP 29 and CMA 6 decisions. They expressed willingness to drop language that could be interpreted as providing guidance to the operating entities of the FM, provided the matter is addressed by finance negotiators. NORWAY, CANADA, and the UK, opposed, saying they could not prejudice negotiations under other agenda items.

Parties disagreed on the need for consolidated data and information on linkages between the TM and the FM, including the preparation of a technical paper on financial support provided by the FM’s operating entities for technology development and transfer. 

The UK, opposed by various developing countries, favored concluding consideration of the agenda item on TM/FM linkages and considering the matter in the context of discussions on the joint annual report of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) instead.

The co-facilitators will revise their text.

Technology Implementation Programme (TIP): In SBI informal consultations co-facilitated by Elfriede More (Austria) and Omar Alcock (Jamaica), parties continued discussions on a draft CMA decision text.

Delegates voiced differing preferences for the organization of dialogues, including their timelines and governance arrangements. The EU questioned the need to convene these dialogues under the SBs and pointed to the mandate of the TEC and the CTCN, whereas NORWAY, supported by the G-77/CHINA, considered the SBs the right venue to facilitate high-level discussions. NORWAY also stressed the need to include a timeline for the programme. The G-77/CHINA supported addressing trade barriers to technology development and transfer within the dialogues. The EU, UK, NORWAY, and CANADA opposed, saying such discussions are already taking place elsewhere.

On China’s proposal for setting “strategic and quantifiable” goals for the TIP, the EU, supported by CANADA and the UK, considered this unnecessary and pointed to the existing monitoring and evaluation systems under the TM. CHINA highlighted that these systems only cover the TIP’s second objective (addressing challenges identified in the periodic assessment of the TM), but not the first one (strengthening support for the implementation of developing countries’ technology priorities). The G-77/CHINA emphasized that measuring progress towards the objectives of the TIP was “the missing piece” for achieving the Paris Agreement’s long-term vision for technology development and transfer to improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Article 10.1).

The co-facilitators will revise their text.

Other Issues

Dialogue on implementing the Global Stocktake outcomes, referred to in paragraph 97 of decision 1/CMA.5: In informal SBI consultations, Co-Facilitators Ricardo Marshall (Barbados) and Patrick Spicer (Canada) introduced a draft CMA decision text. The LMDCs, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, and others rejected the text as the basis of discussions, stressing it exceeds the mandate of the group. Underscoring the need for finance-focused discussions, they opposed a “mini-GST.” The EU pointed out the text does not imply a mini-GST and suggested informal informals. The MOUNTAIN PARTNERSHIP lamented the lack of reference to mountains in the text.

Gender: In SBI informal consultations, co-facilitated by Carol Franco (Dominican Republic) and Jared Huntley (Australia), discussions continued on the development of a new gender action plan (GAP). Parties emphasized, among others: the role of gender-disaggregated data; gender-responsive budgeting; traditional knowledge systems; and decent work for women in green and blue economies. JAPAN stressed addressing the gender item under both the COP and CMA and considering the budgetary implications of the GAP. 

Parties continued to diverge on terminology. NORWAY referred to “women and girls in all their diversity.” NIGERIA called for “gender concepts that are relevant and applicable to the climate action context” and “mapped, defined, and agreed to by parties.”

NORWAY, PANAMA, and the PHILIPPINES suggested addressing unpaid and underpaid care work. NORWAY underlined sexual reproductive health and, with the UK, gender-based violence. PANAMA highlighted reproductive rights and called the climate crisis the “product of patriarchy, colonialism, and extractivism.” 

Recalling the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and protocols for ethical engagement, the INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS called for the inclusion of Indigenous women, girls, and gender-diverse people in all negotiation processes and implementation mechanisms, as well as direct and equitable access to means of implementation. WOMEN AND GENDER called for an ambitious, robust, and impactful GAP to shift patriarchal power structures; highlighted human rights, intersectionality, and justice; and lamented the absence of gender from the 30 priorities outlined in the incoming COP 30 Presidency’s latest letter. YOUTH NGOs (YOUNGOs) lamented backsliding on terminology. They called for an intersectional and inclusive approach beyond binary categories, emphasizing among others, Afrodescendants, persons with disability, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer people.

The co-facilitators will produce draft text.

Research and Systematic Observation: In SBSTA informal consultations co-facilitated by Patricia Nying’uro (Kenya) and Frank McGovern (Ireland), parties continued to review draft text.

KUWAIT called for deleting language encouraging the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to “continue providing policy-relevant and timely scientific information for relevant work under the Convention and the Paris Agreement.” The LDCs, AOSIS, the UK, NORWAY, JAPAN, and ICELAND urged retaining this language. On the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7), SOUTH AFRICA and KUWAIT supported adding references to enhancing regional representation. AUSTRALIA proposed noting improvements on inclusivity from AR6 and, with the EU, encouraging continued efforts. 

On the state of the climate, CHINA preferred more concise language, whereas NORWAY, JAPAN, and ICELAND sought to preserve granularity, including with regard to ocean heat, sea levels, and extreme weather events. KENYA and KUWAIT called for adding references to drought, desertification, and water scarcity.

With respect to strengthening research capacity, CHINA and KUWAIT called for a broader reference to developing countries, while LDCs and AOSIS preferred retaining specific language on LDCs and small island developing states.

INDIA cited a lack of evidence on every increment of warming having compounding effects. The UK supported adding references to “limits and risks” of carbon dioxide removal and abatement technologies. The ARAB GROUP opposed, pointing to IPCC findings that such technologies are unavoidable. They emphasized a “pressing need to maximize their potential” and develop relevant methodologies. AOSIS proposed highlighting “the role, risk, and uncertainties associated with carbon dioxide removal, including social and environmental implications, especially with regard to developing countries.”

The co-facilitators will revise their text.

Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings: In an SBI contact group co-chaired by Laurence Ahoussou (Canada), parties discussed the organization of COP 30. The incoming Presidency noted; the format and expected outcome of the Leaders’ Summit is yet to be finalized; all heads of state will be invited; and interference with coordination meetings will be avoided. The LDCs emphasized the need for the Secretariat to reflect on a change of dates for groups’ coordination meetings to avoid clashes with the Summit and resulting cost implications. 

Parties then shared views on enhancing observer engagement (FCCC/SBI/2025/6), noting that 3,956 observer organizations were admitted to the UNFCCC by the end of COP 29, which is a 58 per cent increase since COP 25. There was broad agreement on the importance of enhancing meaningful observer participation, particularly from underrepresented regions. The AFRICAN GROUP called for information on the geographical representation of observers, with the ARAB GROUP suggesting the Secretariat prepare a biennial report on observer engagement. Several parties and observers highlighted the need for a more refined way to assess geographical representation, noting that the location of an organization’s headquarters says little about its geographical scope or the national background of its members.

The UK, EU, AUSTRALIA, and observer constituencies supported trialing a change in the order of statements, such as hearing observers right after groups in plenary. Noting that party overflow is crowding out observers, the EU suggested daily badges for party overflow. The ARAB GROUP questioned how a cap on party delegations would be applied to regional economic integration organizations.

The UK emphasized the UNFCCC Secretariat must uphold freedom of assembly in the blue zone, with ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs (ENGOs) and YOUNGOs urging parties to require the Secretariat not to unduly restrict civil society messaging. 

WOMEN AND GENDER and YOUNGOs called for clarity about the complaints handling procedure and, with ENGOs, urged recognition of a disability constituency. Pointing to the overcrowded action agenda, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY NGOs suggested better leveraging regional climate weeks. ENGOs and YOUNGOs reiterated calls to limit participation of individuals with vested interests. The ARAB GROUP cautioned against further exacerbating the underrepresentation of some regions, which may be dependent on certain sectors.

On enhancing efficiency of the UNFCCC process, comments also related to: mandating a technical paper on phasing out items from the CMP’s agenda; cost and capacity considerations with regard to mandated events; possible amendments to the draft rules of procedure; and forwarding the issue of arrangements for intergovernmental meetings for continued consideration at SBI 63.

The co-facilitators will prepare draft text on the organization of future sessions and observer engagement. 

In the Corridors

Delegates looking at the schedule in the morning were met with a surprise: the daily negotiations were to be wrapped up by 1:00 pm. Through the grapevine, delegates were reminded that, a decade ago, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) recommended that meetings taking place on a Saturday be completed by midday. “I don’t remember this being applied in recent years,” noted a delegate, who wondered whether this would really “enhance the efficiency, timeliness, and transparency of work” as the SBI had reasoned. 

Some welcomed time to debrief and consult informally with their colleagues. Others were less than pleased as it meant they had multiple meetings to juggle, all crammed into three hours, rather than spread throughout the day as they expected. “We have already lost two days at the beginning of the week, why would we cut more precious negotiating time?” lamented one representative.

With delegates facing the tough choice between an early summer weekend and collective remembrance, attempts to conjure up the “spirit of Paris” at a sparsely attended special event marking the 10-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement failed to spark much enthusiasm. Those in the room could not hide some  nostalgia, recounting the ins and outs of a unique experience and the bonds that delegates forged at the time. For all its flaws, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell recalled that the world would be headed for a whole other level of catastrophe without the shift brought about by the Paris Agreement. It is really up to us to ensure we are not “losing this battle collectively,” as Indigenous expert Hindou Ibrahim cautioned.