After failing to get some of their main asks at the COP30 climate summit in November, European Union environment ministers are considering a new strategy for international climate negotiations which they describe as “less naive”, and more “realistic” and “pragmatic”.
On their way into a meeting to discuss the strategy in Cyprus last Friday, several ministers and officials hinted that the EU should take a tougher line in the United Nations (UN) climate talks and make more use of its power as a climate finance donor and trade partner.
At COP30 in the Brazilian city of Belém, the EU pushed – along with other countries including the UK and some Latin American and small island nations – for stronger outcomes on transitioning away from fossil fuels, including a global roadmap. But after fractious all-night talks, the group was left disappointed as big fossil-fuel producers and most African states did not come on board.
Last week, reflecting on those results, Belgian climate minister Jean-Luc Crucke told reporters that Europe should be “realistic” and “better prepared”. Speaking in French, he said multilateralism should not mean that “it is always the same people who contribute while others do not”.
Hungary’s state secretary for environmental affairs Aniko Raisz said the EU must learn the lessons of COP30. The EU “has nothing to be afraid of, nothing to be shy of, we are not lacking ambition”. But, she added, “we need realism, we need pragmatism and we need to show that we are competitive”.
-
EU alliance with climate-vulnerable nations frays over finance trade-off
Negotiators from the EU and from small island states – usually well-aligned at UN climate talks – have expressed disappointment in each other after COP30 -
COP30 fails to land deal on fossil fuel transition but triples finance for climate adaptation
Instead of a global agreement to create roadmaps to shift away from fossil fuels and end deforestation, Brazil announces voluntary initiatives
According to Radio France Internationale, an official from the office of French climate minister Monique Barbut told reporters before the meeting in Cyprus that the EU must be “less naive” and “more assertive, more demanding and more transactional if we want to have an impact in these negotiations”.
“We are in a tougher world where the European Union, when it comes to climate negotiations, is more isolated,” the quoted official said, before questioning whether the EU should “continue to demonstrate climate and financial solidarity with countries” that have not met their obligations under the Paris Agreement.
“We have tools like trade agreements,” whose implementation could be conditional on compliance with the Paris accord, the unnamed source added.
Speaking after the ministers’ meeting, European Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said the EU “is financing by far the most of climate action abroad” but “unfortunately, solidarity and reciprocity do not always go hand in hand. and that has to change”.
According to analysis by think-tank ODI Global, the US has never paid its fair share towards rich countries’ climate finance commitments and, under the Trump Administration, has now pulled back from climate finance almost entirely, leaving the EU as by far the biggest provider.
Trade and finance as leverage
Discussions are still at an early stage, details of the new strategy have yet to be published and the European Commission did not respond to a request for comment. But a source who speaks regularly to EU officials said they expect the bloc to become more selective in who it gives climate finance to, placing greater weight on the EU’s own commercial and geopolitical interests.
The source told Climate Home News that a higher proportion of funding may be given on a country-to-country basis, rather than through UN climate funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) where it is harder to control. Several European nations recently blocked Oman from getting GCF climate finance for an early warning system, sparking accusations of “discrimination” and “political considerations” from developing countries.
Trade could also be used as leverage. The EU’s recent trade deals with New Zealand, Kenya, Chile, India and the South American Mercosur bloc all included clauses specifying that both sides should implement the Paris climate agreement. Those provisions have yet to be used, despite backtracking on climate action from the New Zealand government.
-
Vanuatu pushes new UN resolution demanding full climate compensation
The Pacific island nation wants the UN General Assembly to enforce last year’s landmark court decision on states’ climate responsibility, a first draft shows -
China maximises battery recycling to shore up critical mineral supplies
Beijing is bracing for a tsunami of spent EV batteries by taking steps to boost recycling – a strategy that could also cut its reliance on imports of clean energy minerals -
Congress rescues aid budget from Trump’s “evisceration” but climate misses out
While the package sidelines dedicated climate programmes, restored funding for nature, agriculture and health could still indirectly support climate action
At UN shipping talks in October, the Trump administration used threats of tariffs and visa restrictions on individual negotiators to achieve its aim of delaying green regulations, outmanoeuvring the EU and its allies.
“In a world where Trump is inserting clauses into trade agreements and using bullying tactics, it’s important for Europe to look at how it can – in a values-based way – use all of its assets too,” former German climate envoy Jennifer Morgan told Climate Home News.
Morgan, one of the EU’s lead negotiating figures at COP27, COP28 and COP29, said the EU should integrate climate into all areas of foreign and economic policy and combine trade, investment, climate and energy security files. She also urged the bloc’s members to hire more high-level climate diplomats.
After a change in the German government, Morgan’s climate envoy position was abolished and now no major EU country has a climate diplomat of ministerial or deputy ministerial rank, making it harder to organise meetings with foreign ministers.
The EU’s diplomats in the European External Action Service should collaborate more with the European Commission divisions dealing with climate (DG CLIMA) and international partnerships (DG INTPA) so that the EU can “speak with one voice in capitals and internationally”, Morgan said.
But, she suggested, “Trump-like transactionalism should be avoided” as “countries need to come together to build the clean economy, not divide and rule to keep the old”.
Too transactional already?
The EU has already faced accusations that it is too transactional and doubling down on this strategy could backfire. At COP30, negotiators from the world’s poorest countries, African nations and small islands criticised EU attempts to trade promises on adaptation finance for commitments to cut emissions. “Adaptation is a right, not a bargaining chip,” said Africa’s then lead negotiator Richard Muyungi.
Avantika Goswami, climate lead at the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, told Climate Home News: “It is unfortunate that the EU is seeing a fractured world and choosing to be transactional and ‘pragmatic’, rather than reinforcing their commitment to international cooperation and a multilateral regime based on justice and reparations.” She added that, as the EU has not yet fully eliminated its own dependence on fossil fuels, this strategy is “hypocritical”.
The Asia Society Policy Institute’s Li Shuo also warned the EU against taking a harder stance. “In turbulent times, the line between assertiveness and hypocrisy grows thin,” said the China specialist, adding that the EU’s new strategy could further isolationism and damage its relationships.
He said the EU should engage better with other powers like China to advance its interests. Other than an EU-China summit in July 2025, there has been little recent climate diplomacy between the two, despite hopes their partnership would deepen after Trump decided to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement.
The post After disappointing COP30, EU mulls “less naive” strategy for climate talks appeared first on Climate Home News.
After disappointing COP30, EU mulls “less naive” strategy for climate talks
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.