After nearly a year of talks, government negotiators on Saturday struck a tentative deal on what a new fund for climate victims will look like.
But although they grudgingly agreed on what to recommend to Cop28, members of the loss and damage transitional committee warned that their bosses may want to reject this advice and re-hash debates in Dubai.
At Cop27 climate talks in Egypt last year, governments agreed to set up a loss and damage fund to channel money to those suffering from destruction caused by climate change. They tasked a 24-member transitional committee to work out the details this year and report back to Cop28.
After five gruelling meetings, that committee completed what co-chair Outi Honkatukia described as “mission impossible” on Saturday night at a five-star hotel in Abu Dhabi.
Developing countries conceded to let the World Bank host the new fund on a temporary basis, with a view to making it independent later. They had reservations about high costs and the US’ ideological influence on the World Bank.
The US, on the other hand, made limited headway in broadening the pool of donors expected to contribute.
Bad blood
US negotiator Christina Chan expressed the most unhappiness.
Her last-minute requests to weaken developed countries responsibility to pay into the fund were rejected by the committee’s co-chairs, who said it was a “take it or leave it” text as there was no time left to negotiate.
Although the meetings cameras did not pick this up, developing countries lead negotiator Pedro Luis Pedroso Cuesta claimed that Chan left the room as co-chairs were about to finalise agreement. “Leaving the room was meant to [paralyse] the committee,” Cuesta said.
But, hearing no objections, co-chair Outi Honkatukia banged her gavel to signal agreement. As negotiators applaud, the meeting room’s camera showed Chan walking across the room back to her seat.
A few minutes later, she said that she had objected to the text a couple of times.”If this is consensus-based, I’m not sure why there is now a decision,” she said.
On the other side of the debate, Egyptian negotiator Mohammed Nasr said he was “not happy with the text” but would accept it for now.
He added: “Once we are at the Cop[28], there will be discussions around the document… we have several reservations that we have highlighted.”
Bouncing her crying baby up and down, Armenia’s deputy environment minister Gayane Gabrielyan asked: “Is it we who will be the final decision-makers?”
She added: “I don’t think so. We are going to Cop. We are going to big bosses with our suggestions.”
Who pays?
A major split was that developing countries wanted more emphasis on the group of countries the UN classified in 1992 as developed being responsible for paying into the fund.
These developed countries wanted to broaden out responsibility to wealthier countries still classified as developing, like Singapore, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
They compromised on an agreement which "urges" developed countries "to continue to provide support" but only "encourage[s]" other countries to provide support.
It "invites financial contributions with developed country Parties continuing to take the lead to provide financial resources" for setting up the fund.
Celebrating the agreement, the EU's lead climate negotiator Wopke Hoeskstra posted on X that "all parties can contribute to it - and I believe that all who have the ability to should do so".
This evening, EU negotiators in Abu Dhabi reached an important agreement with global partners on #lossanddamage.
The world will get a fund focused on support for the most vulnerable. All parties can contribute to it - and I believe that all who have the ability to should do so.
— Wopke Hoekstra (@WBHoekstra) November 4, 2023
The negotiators agreed there will be a fundraising round for the fund every four years, like there is for the UN's Green Climate Fund. But donors can give money at any time.
Money can come from the private sector or from innovative sources, which aren't specified but could include taxes on fossil fuels, shares or airplane tickets.
Who benefits?
Developed and developing countries were split on who should be able to receive money from the fund, after governments at Cop27 agreed it should be restricted to developing countries which are "particularly vulnerable".
Developing countries argued they are all particularly vulnerable. But developed nations wanted to restrict funding to small island developing states (Sids) and the world's least developed countries (LDCs).
They settled on just repeating similar language to Cop27 that "developing countries that are particulaly vulnerable" to climate change are eligible. There is no agreed definition of vulnerability.
They agreed that all developing countries should be able to access the fund's resources when that is "consistent with policies and procedures" that the fund's board establish in the future.
The board will have a majority of developing country representatives, despite a US push to weight it towards developed ones.
Developed countries wanted to set up sub-funds, so they could finance their preferred areas like support for small islands, climate-driven migration or slow onset events like sea level rise.
But developing countries succesfully opposed this, arguing that the fund's board not the wealthy donor countries should decide where the money goes.
There will be a minimum floor for the percentage of money that goes to Sids and LDCs.
The EU's lead negotiator Wopke Hoekstra posted that the fund will be "focused on support for the most vulnerable".
Who hosts?
The US and other developed countries wanted the fund to be hosted by the World Bank.
This would mean it would be based at the bank's headquarters in Washington DC and its staff will be employees of the bank.
Developing countries resisted this, accusing the bank of charging high hosting fees, a weak climate record and compromising its fund's independence.
The bank's head is chosen by its biggest shareholder, the US government. Opposing the bank as host, developing countries lead negotiator Pedro Luis Pedroso Cuesta said last month: "We know the history. We know the politics. We know the manipulation."
Avoid our mistake: Don’t let World Bank host loss and damage fund
They compromised on making the bank the interim host for four years, with a number of assurances that the fund will become independent.
Celebrating the agreement, Cop28 president Sultan Al Jaber said in a statement that the committee had "broken deadlocks and found common ground to deliver clear recommendations".
He added: "Parties must seal the deal in Dubai... billions of people, lives and livelihoods who are vulnerable to the effects of climate change depend upon the adoption of this recommended approach at Cop28."
The post World Bank to initially host loss and damage fund under draft deal appeared first on Climate Home News.
World Bank to initially host loss and damage fund under draft deal
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.