The second week of COP29 kicks off: an update on all the key issues

Today in Baku, Azerbaijan, the second and decisive week of COP29 begins. As always, in COP negotiations, the process has now become more political. After six days of work led by the UNFCCC’s technical bodies (SBI and SBSTA), negotiations now proceed under the direct leadership of the COP Presidency. Delegations are preparing their ministers to step in, as political interventions will be needed on the most contentious issues.

Where do we stand?

The SBI and SBSTA concluding plenary of the first week ended late on Saturday night, just past midnight local time, with results that, in our view, were disappointing.
In saying this, we do not wish to express an overly politicized opinion on the state of this COP (though we do hold such views, as you know, on certain key topics). Nevertheless, it is clear to any observer that a technical plenary that defers critical issues to the following year, postpones others to the second week, and produces chaotic, incomprehensible, or entirely absent accompanying texts signals that this is not shaping up to be a successful COP. Let’s break it down and analyze where this week’s work will begin on the primary negotiation topics.

NCQG – New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance

Still undecided: discussions continue into the second week.

This is the central topic of COP29. On Saturday, a new draft negotiation text was circulated, which was virtually identical to the previous version, save for three minor corrections. With no consensus among parties on how to refine the text further, the matter has been carried over to the second week of negotiations.

Developing countries, led in negotiations by China within the G77+China group, continue to call for an annual target of $1 to $1.3 trillion in climate finance mobilized externally to support the most vulnerable countries, preferably in the form of grants rather than loans.
The United States, the European Union, and other Western countries, on the other hand, have maintained their stance, insisting on expanding the contributor base to include developing countries with substantial financial capacity and significant greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to European and OECD nations. Positions, in short, remain unchanged from a week ago.

This negotiation on the new financial goal is undoubtedly the transversal issue of this COP: any progress (or lack thereof) in this room will trigger movements in others, reflecting the complex interplay of interests across the various provisions of the Paris Agreement.

We should also note that one sub-topic under the broader umbrella of finance failed to advance during the first week. After a week of discussions, the chairs of the two technical bodies, SBI and SBSTA, decided to invoke Rule 16, deferring any decision on the role of the Standing Committee on Finance to 2025.

Mitigation and the Mitigation Work Programme

This topic was effectively killed at COP29 on Saturday night – deferred to 2025 intermediates (…?)

To the deep frustration of delegations from the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and others, the chairs of SBI and SBSTA acknowledged the total lack of consensus on how to proceed with this negotiation and invoked Rule 16. In the UNFCCC framework, Rule 16 defers discussions to the next negotiation session – in this case, the Bonn intermediate talks in June 2025.

During Saturday evening’s extended session, numerous delegations supported the United Kingdom’s proposal to adopt at least a minimal text acknowledging the lack of agreement in the first week, with the aim of forwarding the issue to ministers for discussion in the second week. However, strong opposition from India, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the African Group effectively blocked this initiative, ending the negotiations.

This negotiation stream, known as the Mitigation Work Programme, was the only one addressing the critical issue of emission reductions ahead of the publication of new national climate plans (NDCs) next spring. In an earlier update, we had titled a piece: “The Mitigation Programme Could Die in Baku,” and as of Saturday night, this has come true. The Mitigation Work Programme is officially dead, sacrificed on the altar of the lack of progress in the financial negotiations. This marks the first major failure of this COP.

However, there remains a faint glimmer of hope for this specific negotiation stream. Since the Mitigation Work Programme is also listed on the CMA agenda – the COP for Paris Agreement signatories – the Presidency could, on its own initiative, decide to reopen discussions. Otherwise, as mentioned, the topic is deferred under the SBI and SBSTA agendas.

Article 6 (bilateral cooperation under 6.2, PACM ex 6.4, non-market approaches)

On to week two, with controversy over 6.2 and the issue of registries.

Discussions on the three tracks derived from Article 6 of the Paris Agreement have continued, with a particular focus on methodologies for bilateral cooperation under 6.2. It’s worth noting that most of the decisions anticipated at this COP under Article 6 were expected within the 6.4 track, aimed at operationalizing the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism, nine years after its conception. Unusually, the majority of these decisions were finalized as early as last Monday.

All three negotiation tracks will carry over into the second week of COP29, with special attention on 6.2, where tensions seem to have escalated between Thursday and Friday. The long-standing, almost philosophical division has resurfaced between the United States and the European Union regarding the creation of a centralized registry under the UN for all bilateral transactions between countries. The United States favors less centralization, while the European Union advocates for much more. This fundamental disagreement was one of the factors that led to the collapse of negotiations in Dubai.

Additionally, there are debates in the room over the nature of ITMOs (Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes) — the emission credits under the Paris Agreement system. Some countries view them as credits, akin to those sold in voluntary markets, while others do not. This distinction carries significant legal implications for national systems.

The atmosphere appears much calmer, however, in the 6.8 negotiations on non-market approaches. Likely contributing to this is the fact that far less money is currently at stake in this sector compared to 6.2 and 6.4. Progress has already been made toward drafting a preliminary final decision.

Dialogue on Implementing the Global Stocktake

In the second week of COP29, the European Union and Small Island States take center stage.

The dialogue on how to implement last year’s final decision from COP28 has become a focal point at COP29—perhaps unexpectedly—due to the hardening of certain positions.

In summary, the dialogue aims to develop a basic work plan for the coming years, enabling progress on all aspects of the Global Stocktake (GST) decision. This includes moving from general considerations—such as acknowledging that we are off track to stay within the limits of the Paris Agreement—to sector-specific measures.

During the first week, the European Union, highly active in these discussions, repeatedly expressed disappointment over what it described as the non-holistic approach of many delegations, seemingly driven solely by this year’s priority on climate finance.

Meanwhile, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has been advocating strongly for an ambitious decision under this work stream, particularly now that the COP has sidelined the parallel Mitigation Work Programme.

Adaptation, Global Goal, and National Plans

Three out of four texts sent to Ministers for the second week, tension over NAPs

Almost all adaptation workstreams managed to produce at least minimal draft texts, sufficient to be forwarded to Ministers and the COP for further review during the second week of negotiations. Specifically, this includes texts on the Global Goal on Adaptation, the evaluation of the Adaptation Committee’s report, and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).

On the latter, consensus was only reached at the last minute before Saturday’s plenary, with the Presidency already prepared to defer this issue to next year. However, work on the review of the Adaptation Committee did not make the cut for the first week and was postponed to 2025. This caused significant disappointment within the European Union, which, during the plenary, pointed out that this postponement has happened “for the fourth consecutive year.”

Earlier this week, our delegate Francesca Casale followed all adaptation discussions closely. For more details on what was negotiated, visit this link.

Loss and Damage

Warsaw Mechanism review postponed by a year

At this year’s COP, discussions on Loss and Damage focused on whether and how direct funding for the new Loss and Damage Fund should be included in the NCQG. While contributions from new countries pushed the Fund’s total beyond $720 million, two technical negotiations continued: the scheduled 2024 review of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and the annual report of the Santiago Network Executive Committee.

Unfortunately, due to a lack of consensus in both sessions, the SBI and SBSTA Chairs were forced to invoke Rule 16, deferring both topics (including the WIM review, originally planned for 2024) to June 2025.

Just Transition Work Programme

No text yet, but the topic moves to the second week

After a largely unproductive first week, the SBI and SBSTA bodies decided to defer the entire topic to the second week under the COP Presidency, as no shared negotiation text was agreed upon.

Much of the contention during the first week stemmed from entrenched positions, such as that of the Russian Federation, which insisted on including references in the text to the sovereign right to determine national emission plans and just transition policies without external interference. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, slowed discussions by repeatedly emphasizing the lack of mitigation commitments from Western countries.

There were also heated debates about the protection of human rights and substantive discussions on job creation and preservation in the transition. Despite these disputes, the matter has been carried over to the second week.

Gender Policies

Contention over the text involving Iran, the EU, Youngo, and WGC, but negotiations continue

Negotiations will also continue on the draft decision under development on Gender Policies, which sparked considerable debate during the week. The controversy arose because the text bracketed – as though it were a negotiable or marginal issue – a reference to the need to prevent gender-based violence in the development of any climate policy.

Iran repeatedly highlighted that the draft in its entirety risks conflicting with the country’s internal legal framework. The European Union, Mexico, Brazil, and Australia, however, stressed that on such issues, COP language can only advance and should not regress.

A significant portion of civil society – particularly youth constituencies and feminist activist groups – expressed concern over the draft text. Nevertheless, negotiations on this topic will proceed into the second week.

Cover Image: Photo by UN Climate Change – Kiara Worth