The Work Programme stems from the Mutir\u00e3o decision adopted at COP30 in Bel\u00e9m, which established a two-year process on climate finance, including Article 9.1 within the broader context of Article 9 of the Paris Agreement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why does this matter?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The outcome was itself a compromise. Developing countries had sought a dedicated process to scrutinise implementation of Article 9.1, which places a legal obligation on developed countries to provide financial resources to developing countries. Developed countries, however, pushed for a broader conversation that also encompasses finance mobilisation from a range of sources. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the core of this push is a growing concern among developing countries that weakening political commitment from wealthy nations is creating accountability gaps, evading responsibility, and further eroding trust in the climate finance regime. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the 2026 Bonn session, Parties failed to operationalise the Work Programme as negotiations became deadlocked over key issues, including its scope, governance arrangements, the balance between public provision and broader mobilisation of finance, and its intended outputs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This lack of progress frustrated vulnerable countries, which had hoped COP31 would provide an opportunity to launch the work. Their concerns, however, deepened when the Work Programme was omitted from COP31\u2019s provisional agenda, prompting calls for its immediate reinstatement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What\u2019s happened in the Negotiation room?<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Following the agenda adoption, the first session of the CFWP saw Parties continue to express divergent views on the following unresolved issues, with the EU being the loudest voice from developed country groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mandate and Status of First-Year Work<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Developing countries argued that the programme has yet to formally begin because Parties have not agreed on its scope, modalities, and workplan. The AGN particularly called for negotiations on scope, modalities, and workplan to be agreed and finalised at COP31 to guide the programme through its remaining two-year duration to 2028.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On their part, developed countries maintained that the process is already underway and should build on the work, submissions, and informal co-chairs\u2019 report produced during the first year to move directly into substantive negotiations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Scope: Article 9.1 Obligations versus Article 9 as a Whole<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Developing countries stressed that the scope of CFWP should remain firmly focused on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement and the corresponding obligations of developed countries to provide public climate finance, while also calling for fair burden-sharing, robust tracking systems, and greater accountability for the gap between climate finance commitments and delivery. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In contrast, developed countries argued for a broader interpretation of Article 9, emphasising the need to mobilise a wider range of actors, institutions, and financial sources beyond public finance to achieve the Paris Agreement goals and deliver the NCQG. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Tripling of Adaptation Finance flows by 2035<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Developing groups demanded that the CFWP establish a clear reference base year, standardised accounting methodologies, and dedicated thematic pillars to guarantee, deliver, and track provided finance, mobilised finance, and multilateral outflows under the tripling of adaptation finance by 2035. Developed countries maintain that the Baku NCQG decision serves as the primary guiding framework and that adaptation finance discussions belong strictly under the broader NCQG context. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A prolonged negotiation deadlock risks weakening the integrity of existing climate finance obligations and further eroding trust between developed and developing countries, particularly amid shrinking ODA flows and declining contributions to multilateral climate funds. <\/strong>– Saada Mohamed<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Most critically, the consequences would be felt beyond the negotiating rooms, delaying urgently needed reforms to improve access to climate finance, lower the cost of capital, and scale grant-based and other non-debt-inducing adaptation finance for vulnerable nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, a successful Work Programme would mean a major win for transparency, accountability, and accessibility of climate finance. It would also bridge the growing gap between available international finance and the mounting climate challenges faced by developing nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Saada Mohamed is the Climate Finance Advisor at Power Shift Africa <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Developing countries secured an early victory on the opening day of COP31 after Parties agreed to adopt the Climate Finance Work Programme (WP) onto the formal agenda.\u00a0While agenda adoption represents an important procedural win, the real test lies ahead. Can this early win be replicated in the negotiation rooms?<\/p>","protected":false},"author":45,"featured_media":11279,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[26],"writer":[49],"topic":[],"class_list":["post-11275","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blogs","tag-climate-finance","writer-saada-mohamed"],"acf":{"url":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11275","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/45"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11275"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11275\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11278,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11275\/revisions\/11278"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11275"},{"taxonomy":"writer","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/writer?post=11275"},{"taxonomy":"topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?post=11275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n