Negotiations on finance opened this week with Parties expressing a willingness to engage on a broad package of climate priorities, but by midweek significant differences remained over institutional arrangements, financial commitments and the level of ambition needed to advance implementation of the Paris Agreement.
The challenge for the Antalya conference is to secure a balanced, robust outcome that strengthens processes under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) while delivering progress on just transition, mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage.
The proposed package includes operationalising the Just Transition Mechanism, agreeing on the future of the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP), launching the Technical Taskforce under the Belém-Addis Vision (BAV), developing a roadmap for tripling adaptation finance, completing the transition of the Adaptation Fund, improving coordination among loss and damage institutions, mobilising resources for the Santiago Network, and fully capitalising the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD).
Despite a relatively constructive start, discussions with those following the process indicate that consensus will be difficult to secure on several of these issues.
On the Just Transition Mechanism, negotiating groups have broadly recognised the issue as a priority for COP31. Some Parties have also supported establishing a mechanism under the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA), with both political and technical functions. However, positions appear to have moved backwards since the Australia intersessional discussions. Norway and Japan have expressed caution towards creating a new institutional structure, highlighting the continuing divide over the mechanism’s mandate and design.
The future of the MWP has generated somewhat greater convergence. No Party has proposed terminating the programme, while there is broad support for developing a multi-year workplan to guide its future activities. Nevertheless, we understand that disagreements persist over reporting arrangements and how the programme should relate to the second Global Stocktake (GST2). These questions will be central to determining whether the MWP can deliver a more coherent and sustained contribution to mitigation ambition.
Progress on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) faces a different set of challenges. Following the application of Rule 16 at the sixty-fourth session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64), negotiations have restarted from a blank text. Meanwhile, Parties remain divided over the composition of the Technical Taskforce envisaged under the BAV. The taskforce is intended to advance technical cooperation and implementation, but differences over its membership and institutional configuration threaten to complicate agreement on its launch.
Finance has emerged as one of the most contentious elements of the discussions, particularly in relation to the proposed roadmap for tripling adaptation finance. In talks this week, every developing country intervention raised the need to address the increase in adaptation finance, underlining the importance attached to predictable and accessible resources. However, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Japan declined to discuss finance in the GGA negotiating room.
The divide raises questions about how Parties will translate the political commitment to scaling up adaptation support into a credible roadmap, particularly given the persistent gap between developing countries’ needs and the resources currently available.
On the Adaptation Fund, Parties have indicated their intention to conclude the transition process during the current session. However, disagreement over the composition of the Fund’s board remains a significant obstacle. Resolving this institutional question will be important to ensuring that the transition is completed with sufficient political support.
Loss and damage negotiations have also begun to address outstanding institutional questions. Co-facilitators have been mandated to prepare draft text covering the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and the report of the Santiago Network. The discussions are expected to focus on improving coordination and complementarity among the institutions responsible for addressing climate-related loss and damage.
Resource mobilisation remains a major concern, particularly for the FRLD. The scale of demand is stark, as while $2.8 billion in requests have been submitted through the Barbados Implementation Modalities (BIM), only $350 million is currently available. The funding gap illustrates the considerable distance between the needs of vulnerable developing countries and the resources available to respond to climate impacts. Yet the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand have resisted calls for new guidance to the Fund, adding another layer of difficulty to negotiations.
For developing countries, the credibility of the loss and damage architecture will depend heavily on whether institutional coordination is matched by adequate and predictable financial support. The Santiago Network’s ability to provide technical assistance will similarly depend on effective resource mobilisation.
Our verdict?
The broad willingness to negotiate offers a starting point, but the divisions over institutional design, finance and governance demonstrate that political convergence remains fragile. Antalya’s success will ultimately depend on whether Parties can bridge these differences and agree on an outcome that strengthens implementation, responds to developing countries’ priorities, and preserves momentum across the UNFCCC process.
