Climate negotiators in Bonn have been tasked with taking a “deep dive” into how a roadmap to boost climate finance for developing countries should look, so that it can be finalised at COP30 in Brazil – but a series of consultations last week revealed that governments have yet to align on its contents.
At the start of the mid-year talks, UN climate chief Simon Stiell advised governments that the roadmap for mobilising $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 should not be “just a report, but a how-to guide with clear next steps on dramatically scaling up climate finance and investment”.
That will mean reconciling widely divergent views among countries about what sources of finance the roadmap should draw on – and what form the money should come in. Some delegates in Bonn have also complained that the process for compiling the roadmap is unclear.
The “Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T” was launched as part of the new climate finance goal (the NCQG) agreed at COP29, with a commitment for donors to raise $300 million annually – largely from the public purse – at its core.
Brazil: Let’s deliver on our old climate promises before making new ones
Sandra Guzmán, director general of the Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), told Climate Home the roadmap “emerged as a way to reduce the gap” between the $300 billion developed countries have committed to mobilise by 2035 and the far higher amount developing countries were asking for, of $1 trillion-$1.3 trillion.
“It was also a kind of exit plan to prevent the NCQG discussion from moving to Belém,” she noted.
The two COP presidency teams charged with drafting the roadmap – Azerbaijan and Brazil – last week listened to the needs and concerns of governments in Bonn in the first formal consultations on the roadmap since COP29 in Baku.
Differing needs and expectations
One main unresolved rift is that developing countries wanted the $1.3 trillion to consist of public money from rich nations – but according to the text agreed in Baku, all sources of finance are possible with no percentage distribution between them specified, Guzmán said.
Rebecca Thissen, global advocacy lead at Climate Action Network International, told Climate Home the broad scope of proposals on the roadmap from countries in Bonn shows “it’s clear we don’t have a common understanding of what it is and what we´re going to do with it.”
In general, developing countries have requested that the $1.3 trillion should consist of new money that is not re-labelled from other budgets, with public grant money as the bulk of it, excluding loans and other forms of debt.
India, for its part, has said that global tax levies and approaches to raise money from specific sectors should be excluded, even though a recent survey by Greenpeace and Oxfam shows that 80% of respondents in India agreed that oil, gas, coal corporations should be taxed for the environmental damage they have caused.
During last week’s discussions, a delegate from the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), said: “The engagement of private sector and philanthropic institutions must complement and not replace the obligations of developed countries.”
In contrast, the European Union’s representative argued: “We should really focus on scaling up private finance and catalysing investments that drive climate action.” They also called on other countries to join the pool of donors mobilising money – referring indirectly to China and Gulf nations.
From the 116 submissions on the roadmap received ahead of the Bonn talks, only 20 were from governments, with the rest from civil society including NGOs, research organisations and business.
At a consultation for these non-government groups, Avinash Persaud, special adviser on climate change to the president of the Inter-American Development Bank, presented a plan to achieve the $1.3 trillion goal. Under it, multilateral banks would buy existing private-sector loans to renewable energy projects in poor countries, with commercial lenders then using the proceeds for more clean energy investment.
Guzmán said the private sector should play a bigger role but it is still unclear how the roadmap would avoid perpetuating the existing model of largely debt-based climate finance, nor who would benefit – as countries like Brazil and Tuvalu do not have the same needs.
Whose roadmap?
The two COP presidencies are tasked with preparing the roadmap, whose form is still being decided but needs to present ideas for how the $1.3 trillion can be raised.
COP30 CEO Ana Toni told Climate Home it will include recommendations on how to move forward. “It will be what the two COP Presidents – considering what they listened to – feel is needed to mobilise $1.3 trillion,” Toni said in an interview in Bonn.
A first draft of the report is expected to be presented for comment in September, with the final version published in October.
Toni added that she expects many of the recommendations to be for “players” outside the UN climate process. For example, “the reform of the multilateral banks is not something that we can do within the [UN climate] convention, but if it’s mentioned in the report, it will be an important message for those actors,” she said.
How ‘sophisticated’ climate misinformation gets to the heart of power
In Bonn, some officials said it was unclear how the consultations on the roadmap outside the UN climate process would be brought together with those happening inside. In particular, they pointed to a “circle of finance ministers” convened by Brazil to contribute to the roadmap, saying there was confusion about its role.
Toni said the circle is not part of “the official track of the roadmap”. “It’s our [Brazil’s] initiative led by finance minister Fernando Haddad to hear from finance ministers what they feel should be a roadmap to mobilise $1.3 trillion,” she explained.
There have also been concerns about inclusivity. The circle originally covered 24 countries and has since been expanded to 32 members, including the European Union, Canada, the UK and China. One of the selection criteria is to involve countries that have hosted COPs since the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Toni clarified this to Climate Home, saying that any country that wants to participate would be welcome, adding “it’s not a closed shop”. During the Bonn talks, the Marshall Islands and Tanzania asked to join the circle.
Toni said the finance ministers’ circle – due to meet again at a development finance conference in Spain next week – would produce a report that will feed into the roadmap. Civil society consultations have so far been limited to webinars.
Life beyond COP30
Thissen of CAN International said it would be good to connect the climate finance conversation with the wider international finance architecture – but without “forgetting what you have to move forward here, at the COPs”.
She added that developing countries remain concerned there is ambiguity over whether rich nations will be held responsible for ensuring the NCQG finance goal is delivered, which is why they want formal UN discussions to be launched on that specifically.
Another big question for the roadmap at COP30 in Belém is how it will be treated as part of the UN climate process going forward. Countries could formally “note” or “welcome” the final document – as they have done with key climate science reports – or they could include it in the negotiations as a new agenda item or under other discussions such as on long-term finance.
“If the [roadmap] doesn’t include elements that have a scope beyond COP30, it will be an absolutely wasted year,” Guzmán said, warning against a report that fails to meet neither immediate nor future needs. “That’s the greatest risk: to have a document that could die at COP30.”
The post UN expects climate finance roadmap to offer “clear next steps” appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN expects climate finance roadmap to offer “clear next steps”
Delegates will soon gather in the Turkish resort city of Antalya for UN climate negotiations, against a backdrop of war, energy crisis and climate extremes.
At COP31, nations will try to find agreement on various issues, including climate finance for developing countries and a global “just transition” towards a cleaner economy.
This summit is unusual due to its joint presidency, which means that Australia is leading the negotiations while Turkey hosts the conference.
Outside the formal negotiations, Turkey is also pushing its own priorities as part of a wider “action agenda”, including electrification, oceans and “green industrialisation”.
In order to track parties’ positions on key negotiating points and wider issues at COP31, Carbon Brief has analysed around 100 documents and captured them in the interactive table below.
The first column shows the countries and UN negotiating blocs, the second shows the topics up for debate and the third indicates specific issues within those topics.
The final column indicates the positions that the parties have expressed on each topic. These range from “priority” – meaning the party is likely to be pushing the issue – to “oppose”, meaning it is likely to push against it.
This is a “living document” that will be updated over the course of COP31.
Please get in touch if you would like to offer additions by emailing policy@carbonbrief.org.
Brief explanations of the key issues and jargon-filled language that permeate the talks can be found below the interactive table.
Just transition
At COP30 in Brazil in 2025, nations agreed to establish a practical mechanism to help drive a “just transition” to a low-carbon economy.
Key aspects of this “Belém-Antalya mechanism” (BAM) – often referred to as the “just transition mechanism” (JTM) – were agreed during the June climate negotiations this year, but many details are missing and dividing lines remain between parties.
Parties have disagreed about the scope of the mechanism and whether it should be tied to the provision of finance.
Nevertheless, following progress in June within the “just transition work programme” (JTWP), civil society groups highlighted that getting the mechanism up and running is a “key expected outcome” from COP31.
Climate finance
Climate finance is always a highly contested issue at UN climate negotiations.
Developing countries have successfully pushed for a “work programme” on climate finance to feature on the conference agenda.
These parties see this programme as a way to pressure developed countries into providing more funding from their public coffers, specifically under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. Some are even proposing a “burden sharing” arrangement for climate-finance provision.
This comes against a backdrop of major donors cutting their aid budgets and the Trump administration in the US pressuring multilateral development banks (MDBs) to drop their climate objectives.
Developed countries, which have traditionally been responsible for providing finance, would prefer to keep a broader focus on issues such as improving access to existing finance and broadening the range of donors. Some developing countries, such as small-island states, also support these goals.
Nations have also been discussing Article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement under the “Veredas dialogue”. This focuses on making all global “financial flows” consistent with climate action.
Countries have different views about what this involves, with developing countries again hoping to keep the focus on developed countries’ responsibilities to financially support them.
Adaptation and mitigation
At negotiations in June, parties were unable to agree on the details of a “global goal on adaptation” (GGA), which is intended to drive climate adaptation worldwide.
Having agreed at COP30 on a list of 59 “indicators” – ways to assess progress towards the GGA – nations now need to refine these before COP32 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This is a highly technical process that involves a taskforce working out how to use and track these indicators.
Broadly, developing countries stress the importance of finance to fund adaptation efforts, rather than simply to track progress. They also want reassurances about a pledge made last year to “triple adaptation finance”.
At the June climate negotiations, negotiators also failed to make any progress when discussing the mitigation work programme (MWP) – the only formal agenda item that concerns cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Among other things, parties disagreed on whether the MWP should continue running over the next few years, or simply be brought to a close.
Global stocktake and NDCs
Back in 2023, the first “global stocktake” (GST) of the Paris Agreement set out the state of climate action and what needed to be done to set the world on course.
On mitigation, nations agreed to a package of measures, including “transitioning away from fossil fuels”, tripling renewable energy and “halting and reversing deforestation” by 2030.
Some of these outcomes remain contentious among certain parties, particularly large, developing countries and those with economies that rely on fossil-fuel exports.
Developing countries have persistently argued that they need more climate finance to implement the global stocktake outcomes.
Parties were meant to update their climate plans under the Paris Agreement, informed by the first global stocktake, by 2025. These plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), cover the period out to 2035.
So far, only 150 parties – responsible for three-quarters of global emissions – have submitted new NDCs.
Iran, Vietnam, Egypt and Argentina are among those without new NDCs – and the US has withdrawn its climate plan under the Trump administration.
Some parties, such as the EU, have stressed the need for countries to submit their new NDCs ahead of COP31 – and to ensure they are aligned with the 1.5C temperature limit.
COP31 will also see the launch of the second global stocktake, which will conclude in 2028.
Action agenda and other issues
Turkey will be pushing its “action agenda” priorities at COP31, including global targets for electrification, reducing waste and reducing building-sector emissions.
(The Australian “presidency of negotiations” is intending to pursue a “cover text” decision at COP31 that may capture some of these wider targets, such as the electrification goal.)
The action agenda is meant to provide a complementary track to the formal negotiations, where governments and non-state actors can advance specific, real-world solutions.
A new COP31 presidency effort dubbed the “climate implementation bridge” is also meant to complement these ambitions by turning NDC goals into an “investable project portfolio”
Some parties have explicitly signalled their support for various elements beyond the formal negotiations, in the run-up to COP31.
For example, a joint letter signed by 105 parties called for COP31 to “put the ocean at the heart of climate action” by embedding ocean-based climate action in the UNFCCC architecture.
The post Interactive: Who wants what at the COP31 climate change summit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Interactive: Who wants what at the COP31 climate change summit
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewi