- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Cristina Rumbaitis del Rio is a senior advisor on adaptation and resilience and Pan Ei Ei Phyoe is a climate adaptation and resilience consultant with the United Nations Foundation.
COP 30 compels the world to make a decision. Already 3.6 billion people are highly vulnerable to rapidly worsening climate impacts such as droughts, floods, and heat stress. Meanwhile, Glasgow-era climate finance commitments are expiring, and elements of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) are yet to be finalized.
This November provides the opportunity to elevate the issue of adaptation and resilience – and for countries to demonstrate they grasp the urgency and are prepared to act.
Success at COP30 will hinge on how three key questions are answered:
- Will countries agree on a new adaptation finance target backed with real commitments?
- Will countries finalize architecture to track progress toward the Global Goal on Adaptation and implement the UAE Targets for Global Climate Resilience?
- Will adaptation receive elevated political attention at COP30?
A new adaptation finance target backed with real commitments
Belém will test whether negotiators can agree on a new adaptation finance goal that is anchored in clear targets, timelines, and accountability. The Glasgow Climate Pact’s goal to double adaptation finance is set to reach its deadline at the end of this year and countries are facing the question of what, if anything, comes next.
The form of the finance goal also matters: will it be a provision-based target ensuring measurable public contributions, or a mobilization target dependent on less transparent private leverage?
After two consecutive years of falling short, all eyes will be on whether the Adaptation Fund can finally meet its mobilization target and secure a multi-year replenishment to deliver predictable support.
Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are under pressure to demonstrate how to integrate adaptation into country-platform approaches including aligning finance for accelerated country-driven action and providing fast-start financing for implementation of National Adaptation Plans. NAPs have been completed by 67 developing countries and are underway in another 77 countries.
Climate adaptation can’t be just for the rich, COP30 president says
Vulnerable countries currently need an estimated $215 billion-$387 billion annually to adapt to climate change, far exceeding available funding. And developed countries face growing expectations to renew or grow their bilateral commitments beyond Glasgow-era pledges that are expiring this year or next.
Without tangible new finance commitments, the ambition of the Global Goal on Adaptation risks remaining rhetorical.
System to track progress on the Global Goal on Adaptation
The GGA still has no mechanism to measure progress, despite being established under the Paris Agreement in 2015, shaped through multiple work programs since 2021, and further expanded by the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience of COP28 which set 11 targets and launched the UAE-Belém Work Programme.
Agreeing on a robust, streamlined indicator set that is both scientifically sound and usable by countries with differing capacities will be one of the hardest tasks at COP 30. These outcomes will be a test of whether we can move from measuring resilience to building it.
Foreign aid cuts put adaptation finance pledge at risk, NGOs warn
Negotiators must settle the inclusion of equitable means-of-implementation indicators covering finance, technology, and capacity building. Finally, they must decide what comes next under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to ensure the UAE targets are acted upon within the next two to five years.
Those targets include seven that set resilience priorities for water and sanitation, food and agriculture, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, livelihoods and cultural heritage.
Adaptation needs greater political attention at COP30
Last week, COP30 President Corrêa do Lago released the first-ever COP presidency letter focused on elevating adaptation, calling for solutions that will make Belém the “COP of adaptation implementation”. His task now is to embed that principle across every strand of COP30’s delivery architecture.
One test lies in how realistically adaptation is integrated into the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap to $1.3 trillion to be released by the presidency. The implementation of the COP 30 Action Agenda, which provides a blueprint for collective climate action and solutions, could become the bridge between political vision and practical delivery on adaptation.
Questions remain on whether Brazil’s leadership on adaptation thus far will position adaptation as a political priority that will be reflected in leaders’ statements at the opening of COP30. The inaugural High-level Dialogue on Adaptation – hosted by the outgoing COP President Azerbaijan and Brazil – is another opportunity where countries can reaffirm and institutionalize adaptation as a permanent pillar of climate action.
In the role as the host and president of COP30, Brazil has repeatedly stressed the importance of matching adaptation with actual resources and accountability, highlighting adaptation as one of the five guiding stars of the Paris Agreement alongside mitigation, finance, technology, and capacity building.
With the right outcomes in Belém on finance targets, measurement systems, and political commitments, COP30 could be remembered as the moment adaptation financing and implementation finally matched the scale of the challenge.
The post Can COP30 mark a turning point for climate adaptation? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Continue Reading
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
-
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans
Many governments have still not submitted a nationally determined contribution to the UN, breaching a key requirement of the Paris Agreement
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.
Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
-
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
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
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.