As years-long negotiations over boosting global efforts to adapt to climate change enter the final stretch, countries are still divided over targets and the funding to achieve them.
At Cop28 next month, governments are expected to approve a framework to make the Paris Agreement’s global goal on adaptation (GGA) more concrete. The initiative is aimed at enhancing nations’ resilience to extreme weather events, flooding, droughts and sea level rise.
Adaptation is one of the key priorities of the Paris Agreement, alongside emission reductions. But challenges in defining, measuring and funding action on this front have held back progress at the same time as climate risks are accelerating.
Two years ago, at Cop26, countries agreed to a two-year work programme to fill this gap. Developing countries most affected by climate change hoped this would unlock finance to reduce their vulnerability.
Widening finance gap
Developing countries need an estimated $387 billion a year to carry out their current adaptation plans, but in 2021 they only received $21 billion in international adaptation finance, according to a recent report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
“We have seen a reduction in finance and a stalling of flows for adaptation initiatives,” UNEP’s chief scientist Dr. Andrea Hinwood told Climate Home. “We really must act now. It’s only with fast, urgent, consolidated action with appropriate finance flows that we have a chance to address those issues.”
World Bank to initially host loss and damage fund under draft deal
Money is a sticking point in negotiations over the adaptation framework.
Developing countries want the agreement to tackle the question of finance directly, ideally with a dedicated target. On the other hand, developed countries, which would be called upon to foot the bill, oppose any mention of money in the text.
Money struggles
Disagreements nearly sunk talks over the framework in Bonn last June, before being rescued in the eleventh hour. Four months later, as negotiators met for one last time before Cop28, fundamental divisions remained.
The African group proposed the inclusion of a target for the funding of “at least 80% of expressed needs by developing countries” with the size of adaptation finance reaching at least $400bn annually by 2030.
A proposal by China on behalf of the “like-minded group” of developing countries says the framework should require developed countries to provide developing countries with “long-term, scaled-up, predictable, new and additional finance”.
A girl fetches water by digging a hole in a dried up waterbed during a drought in Somalia (Photo: UNDP Somalia/Flickr)
A developed country negotiator told Climate Home they “cannot live” with any references to finance in the framework.
“We want to discuss the substance and not the money. We don’t see the GGA framework as the space to talk about a new climate finance target for adaptation,” they said. “Adaptation finance will be addressed somewhere else and will enable the framework to be effective.”
The European Union suggested in its latest proposal that the role of finance in delivering the targets could be referenced in a decision text outside of the framework.
But developing countries fear that approving a set of actions without clear indications within the text of how to fund them would lead to an “empty framework”.
Lisa Yassin, a negotiator from the group of least developed countries, told Climate Home “it is critical” the question of finance is addressed within the framework.
“It ensures a commitment to ongoing and enhanced funding that is directly responsive to the needs outlined within the framework’s targets,” she said. “It also guarantees its centrality and better accountability beyond Cop28.”
Broken promises
Fuelling divisions is a deepening distrust by developing countries over rich nations’ failure to cough up cash promised for climate action. Developed countries have still not made good on a 2009 pledge to collectively provide $100bn a year by 2020 to help developing countries cut their emissions and adapt to climate impacts.
They are also off track to meet a promise made at Cop26 to double the adaptation finance for developing countries to around $40 billion by 2025. Adaptation public finance flows to developing countries declined by 15% in 2021 to $21 billion, according to UNEP.
Richard Klein, senior research fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, expects “a very difficult conversation” about adaptation finance at Cop28. “If trust and confidence were there that there will be enough money on the table, the question of money under the GGA framework would have not been that crucial. But everybody sees that is not the case,” he added.
Numbers vs high-level targets
Money is not the only dividing line in talks over the adaptation framework. Governments are also split over the wider set of targets that should be included in the text.
Developing nations are pushing for specific numerical targets driving adaptation action. A long list of proposed options includes, for example, measures to protect all humanity with early warning systems for hazardous events by 2027, to boost climate resilience by at least 50% by 2030, and to reduce adverse climate impacts on agricultural production by 50% by 2030.
Developed countries, on the other hand, prefer high-level targets that focus more on the process of adaptation policy rather than on specific activities. Both the EU and the UK, for instance, have called for the inclusion of a deadline by which all countries have national adaptation plans in place.
“We are hesitant on quantification. You cannot copy and paste the template of emission reduction targets, it doesn’t really work for adaptation,” a developed country negotiator told Climate Home. “We don’t have baselines, it’s difficult to measure, there are plenty of questions there.”
The post Talks to boost ‘underfinanced’ climate adaptation split over money appeared first on Climate Home News.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2023/11/08/talks-to-boost-underfinanced-climate-adaptation-split-over-money/
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines
With the COP31 climate summit in Turkey looming, all eyes are on China to see what the country will push for in the negotiations.
At COP30 last year, China helped to secure a “dialogue” on climate-related “unilateral trade measures”, as well as a two-year “work programme” concerning climate finance.
The nation also championed south-south cooperation throughout the conference and co-led a summit on methane, alongside Brazil and the UK.
In a recent press conference, China’s environment vice-minister Li Gao noted the need to “uphold multilateralism” and send a “clear political signal” that the global community is united around climate action.