COP31: negotiations advance, but financing is a challenge for the 2nd week

The first week of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31) officially concluded on Sunday morning (the 15th) in Antalya, Turkey. Experts' assessment so far is that there has been progress on more technical and procedural decisions. However, issues concerning finance, adaptation, and emissions reduction remain without consensus. Central political issues were left for the second and final week of the event, which ends on Friday (the 20th). UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized the urgency of global warming as an imperative for countries to advance negotiations and concrete actions. "A 1.5-degree temperature rise is now inevitable. And our responsibility is to keep it as low as possible, for as short a time as possible, and to bring temperatures back below 1.5 degrees as fast as we can. But that requires immediate and drastic emissions cuts, on the order of 6% per year over the coming years," said Guterres. UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said that no single COP can make the environmental crisis "magically" disappear, but he pressed countries to accelerate negotiations during the event. "Every country has a vision. Every country has a voice. Agreeing on every word, every phrase, is hard but vital work. There is no collective success without concessions from all parties. As we enter the second week, I urge the Parties to move quickly to the most difficult issues and to avoid tactical delays," said Stiell. During discussions on guidance for the Green Climate Fund, there were disagreements over developed countries' responsibility to provide and scale up resources and the possibility of voluntary contributions from developing countries. In the negotiations on long-term finance, countries once again debated whether the goal of mobilizing US$100 billion annually, set by developed countries, was actually met. Another conflict concerns the modality of financing. The Philippines and other countries criticized the growing use of loans, especially for adaptation projects, advocating for instruments better suited to the conditions of beneficiary countries. The European Union supported the use of different modalities, including grants for least developed countries and small island states. The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) also sparked controversy. Brazil, China, the Philippines, African countries, Arab countries, and small island states argued that the COP should provide guidance for the operation of the mechanism. Priorities include faster disbursement policies and financing in the form of grants. The European Union, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway opposed new comprehensive guidance, arguing that the fund's governing board is already working on some of these issues. Karen Oliveira, Director of Public Policy at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Brazil, reinforced concerns about the lack of a clearer financial signal from countries. "This is the main weak point of COP31. There is progress in processes, reports, and dialogues, but they are not accompanied by new financial commitments at the necessary scale. At the same time, the reduction of resources allocated to climate finance mechanisms heightens concerns about the capacity to implement commitments," says Karen. Adaptation: national plans and the global goal Two adaptation-related issues saw no substantive resolution in the first week: National Plans and the Global Goal. Delegations expressed frustration at the lack of time to make progress, and the issues were referred for further discussion in the second week. The biggest problem observed so far was the exclusion of a standalone agenda item on tripling adaptation finance. Developed countries prefer to address it within the collective finance goal, while developing countries advocate for baselines, monitoring, and clear accountability mechanisms. WWF-Brazil climate change expert Flávia Martinelli said that the first week of COP31 showed progress in recognizing adaptation as a priority on the climate agenda. The challenge now, for her, is ensuring that this progress translates into concrete responses for those already facing the impacts of the climate crisis. "Adaptation needs to be at the center of public policies and reach the territories, protecting populations, ecosystems, and livelihoods. What is at stake is not merely meeting an international target, but the ability to reduce vulnerabilities, protect lives, and secure a safer and fairer future for millions of people," says Flávia Martinelli. Agriculture and food security: frustration The agriculture and food security agenda saw progress in discussions, but there was no outcome considered satisfactory by the delegations. Developing countries called for financing, technology transfer, and capacity building to implement actions in agriculture. Brazil supported a European Union proposal to create an informal group of countries interested in finding alternatives to advance the work program on agriculture. Indigenous organizations warned of the lack of ambition and concrete results, highlighting the increased risks related to the effects of El Niño. Farmer representatives also complained about the lack of recognition of their needs and their role in building resilient food systems. "The challenge for the second week will be to prevent the recognition of indigenous peoples and local communities from remaining confined to interventions and dialogue spaces. For concrete progress to occur, the final texts will need to explicitly address their rights, ensure participation in decisions, territorial protection, and real conditions of access to resources," analyzes Karen Oliveira of TNC Brazil. Oceans: an attempt to unite agendas The discussion on oceans was one of the highlighted political items in the first week's ministerial consultations. Among the proposals presented are: incorporating ocean-based solutions into climate policies, including recommendations from the dialogues in the formal outcomes of the COP and in the second global stocktake of the Paris Agreement; and moving from debate to the implementation of concrete measures. Small island states, Pacific countries, and other groups argued that oceans should appear in the COP's final decision. Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Japan, meanwhile, showed resistance to creating new agendas or institutional structures. Panama and the Philippines highlighted the importance of indigenous peoples, local communities, and women. Pacific countries advocated for moving away from fossil fuels as a condition for protecting the oceans. Micronesia and Tuvalu warned against unproven solutions, such as marine carbon capture.