Executive Summary
The second day of the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30), serving as the seventh meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA), saw the launch of intensive substantive negotiations alongside ongoing opening statements from delegations. As negotiators engaged in heated discussions on mitigation, adaptation, and climate finance, the day was marked by protests from Indigenous Peoples at the conference entrance. This rare event highlighted the growing tensions between the official negotiations and the urgent demands of affected communities on the ground. The day reflected a clear divergence of priorities, with developing countries pushing hard for increased finance and accelerated implementation, while developed countries focused on enhancing ambition and transparency.
1. Indigenous Peoples' Protests and Breach of the Blue Zone
Late in the evening, after most official events had concluded, a group of Indigenous protesters and other activists breached the security barriers of the Blue Zone. Limited scuffles broke out between the protesters and UN security forces, resulting in minor injuries and minimal property damage. The protesters chanted slogans demanding greater representation in the negotiations and a stronger voice in forest management, under the banner "They cannot decide for us without us." This incident reflected the growing frustration of local communities who feel their voices and demands for the protection of their lands and resources are not being heard within the halls of international negotiations, especially as extractive projects and carbon trading continue on their lands.
2. Key Messages in the Opening Statements
The opening statements revealed a clear divergence in priorities among the main country groups:
· The Group of 77 and China (G-77/CHINA): Stressed that climate action must be tailored to national circumstances and called for the timely delivery of the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance (NCQG), asserting that USD 300 billion is insufficient to meet the needs of developing countries. They also called for scaling up the provision of Means of Implementation (MoI) to enable climate action at the required speed and scale.
The European Union (EU): Urged consideration of the synthesis reports on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) to maintain momentum towards the 1.5°C goal. They also called for establishing a process to track progress on the consistency of finance flows with low-emission development pathways (Article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement).
The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS): Emphasized the need for a clear follow-up on NDCs, led by major emitters, and called for a substantive outcome on the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) that responds to the mitigation elements of the first Global Stocktake (GST-1) decision.
The Least Developed Countries (LDCs): Proposed tripling adaptation finance from 2025 levels and stressed that the conference must rebuild trust and lead to speedy progress, responding to the demands of stakeholders such as women, youth, and farmers.
The African Group: Highlighted climate finance as the cornerstone for implementing NDCs and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and officially endorsed Ethiopia to host the 32nd session of the Conference of the Parties (COP32) in 2027.
The Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs): Cautioned against changing the architecture of the Paris Agreement, stressing that implementation must remain guided by equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). They expressed hope that the Presidency's consultations on Article 9.1 (developed countries' obligation to provide finance) would yield a fruitful outcome.
Indigenous Peoples Organizations: Lamented the ongoing colonization of their territories, including through carbon trading and renewable energy projects, and called for the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) to uphold international human rights and ensure Indigenous Peoples' access to all forms of climate finance.
3. Substantive Negotiations and Global Stocktake (GST) Outcomes
Negotiations kicked off on multiple tracks, with the outcomes of the first Global Stocktake (GST-1) forming the basis for many discussions, particularly regarding closing the ambition and implementation gap.
Presidency Consultations
The Presidency initiated intensive consultations on four contentious issues not included in the official agenda to avoid deadlock: Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs), Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement concerning developed countries' financing obligations, and unilateral trade-restrictive measures (UTMs). Groups presented divergent proposals, with AOSIS proposing a "response plan" to raise NDC ambition, while the LMDCs called for a work programme to discuss the relationship between Article 9.1 and other parts of the Convention.
Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD)
In the COP/CMA contact group, several parties welcomed the rapid operationalization of the Fund and the launch of its first call for funding requests. The G-77/China stressed the need for a significant increase in resources and a successful first replenishment, while the LDCs called for ambitious pledges commensurate with the needs of developing countries and the prioritization of rapid disbursement modalities.
Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA)
Heated debates took place in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) informal consultations on indicators for tracking progress towards the GGA. Countries agreed that the indicators should be voluntary, non-prescriptive, and not create new burdens, but they disagreed on the details. The African Group and other countries demanded the deletion of indicators tracking domestic budget allocations, arguing that they shift the burden of adaptation finance to developing countries. There was also disagreement on the future course of action, with the African Group proposing a two-year policy process, while other countries preferred a larger role for the Adaptation Committee (AC) and the LDC Expert Group (LEG).
Mitigation Work Programme (MWP)
In the Subsidiary Bodies' informal consultations, views diverged on improvements to the programme, including the creation of a digital platform, how to frame the key outcomes from the global dialogues, and the programme's continuation. The LMDCs and the Arab Group opposed a review of the programme in 2025, noting that the review is mandated for 2026.
Article 6 Mechanisms (Cooperative Approaches)
Regarding Article 6.4 (crediting mechanism), parties congratulated the Supervisory Body (SBM) on its work, but disagreements emerged over the transparency of its proceedings and a proposal to remove term limits for its members. Indonesia raised concerns about standards related to nature-based and land-sector activities, while Costa Rica and the EU called for revisiting the reversal risk standard to ensure robustness.
4. Institutional Arrangements
The most significant announcement of the day was the African Group's unanimous endorsement of Ethiopia's bid to host the 32nd Conference of the Parties (COP32) in 2027. This early announcement comes at a time when the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) is still deadlocked between Australia and Türkiye for the hosting of COP31 in 2026, reflecting the African continent's unified position and its desire to advance its priorities on the international stage.
5. In the Corridors and Informal Sessions
A feeling prevailed in the corridors that progress in the negotiations was slower than the movement of delegates between rooms. Discussions on the Mitigation Work Programme seemed as entrenched as ever, which a seasoned delegate described as "business as usual at this point." Surprisingly, some developing countries suggested postponing the adoption of indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation, which some observers interpreted as a bargaining chip to reinforce the demand for tripling adaptation finance. The day ended with news of the activists' breach of the Blue Zone, leading to the evacuation of those remaining in the venue, a stark reminder that what happens outside the negotiation rooms is as important as what happens inside.
