Agenda adopted! Moments ago in Antalya, Turkey, COP31 president Murat Kurum outlined how an “agenda fight” has been averted, despite various proposals for additions to proceedings.
This came after a short delay, while a series of huddles took place on the plenary dais (see pic) – and after a late-night meeting of heads of delegation last night.
Here’s what Kurum outlined:
-
Tripling adaptation finance: There was no consensus on the topic, said Kurum. It was therefore not added to the agenda, “without prejudice” to it coming up elsewhere.
-
Climate-related trade matters: this was not added to agenda, Kurum said, “without prejudice” to the matter coming up elsewhere. He noted that the chairs of the subsidiary bodies (SBs) will invite submissions on topics for the next dialogue on this matter in Bonn.
-
Sustainable diets: A proposal from Comoros was withdrawn.
-
Mountains and climate: two proposed agenda items have not been added. Instead, they will hold presidency consultations + Bonn 2027/2028 research dialogues.
-
GCF funding: not added to agenda; instead, the matter of funding for the Green Climate Fund will be taken up alongside agenda items on the GCF report / GCF guidance.
-
Seventh review of financial mech: This will be deferred to COP32.
-
Convention amendment proposals from Russia and PNG: “held in abeyance” (again – these are long-standing proposals that are always ignored).
A series of interventions after Kurum spoke shed light on the views of various negotiating groups.
The African group – which had put forward the items on adaptation finance and climate/trade – thanked the president for his approach.
The Umbrella Group – represented by the UK – thanked parties for their flexibility on the agenda and reassured developing countries that adaptation finance “is not an orphan and will continue to be taken forward”.
The EU was less positive, “taking note” of the agenda and reiterating “serious concerns that the agreed outcomes and delicate compromises of the Mutirao decision [from COP30] are increasingly called into question”.
In particular, the EU “remain[ed] deeply concerned” about the way the new “climate finance work programme” (CFWP) was added to the agenda. It said the COP30 deal on this work programme had been made with the understanding that there would be no agenda item. And it reiterated that the WP is only due to last for two years and already has an “agreed scope”.
India, disagreeing with the EU, said that COP30 had agreed for the CFWP to be a “standalone agenda item”. It also “regret[ted]” that tripling adaptation finance had not been added to the agenda.
(For ref here’s the COP30 decision, which at para 54 does not mention the CFWP being on the agenda of future COPs…)
Switzerland, for the Environmental Integrity Group, said it “regret[ted]” the way that many proposed new agenda items were being put forward as a way to raise the profile of some issues. It asked that the COP31 cover decision “not be defined on the basis of agenda item proposals”.