The meeting opened on Monday with a sense of relief, as Parties adopted the agenda without the procedural disputes that have become common in recent years, particularly following the political tensions that emerged after COP30 in Belém.
However, a smooth start has not translated into meaningful progress. The dominant theme of week one has been “implementation,” yet Parties are still struggling to agree on how implementation should be financed and supported. Once again, finance has emerged as the central political fault line.
This round up looks at how discussions unfolded across finance, adaptation, just transition, and gender, before turning to the issues that will shape the second week of negotiations.
Finance
Climate finance remains the issue that most determines whether vulnerable nations can act on climate commitments, and week one exposed how far apart developed and developing countries remain on this question. Developed countries pushed for greater reliance on financial markets and the private sector, while developing countries insisted that public finance is essential to reduce risk and unlock further investment. Although both sides broadly agree that public finance has a role to play, the trend of shrinking climate finance flows remains a serious concern for vulnerable nations, who continue to call for stronger commitments. Developing countries and civil society also pushed to have the Climate Finance Work Programme included on the COP30 provisional agenda, setting up a key debate for week two.
"Even if all party states are showing frustration of the climate finance landscape, as of now the progress regarding it is very slow due to a clear divide in understanding and priorities between the developed and developing nations. Something which the concluded informal dialogue sessions held in Bonn have not been able to bridge,"
"However, the shared recognition of the need for provision of public finance and comments made by some developed countries on their commitment to provision in the current geopolitical landscape, presents hope and a strong belief in multilateralism."
Discussions on the Adaptation Fund, including arrangements for its transition under the Paris Agreement, made no progress and will need to be picked up in week two.
Global Goal on Adaptation
"The strongest message emerging from SB64 Week 1 is clear: adaptation is not constrained by a lack of plans, frameworks, or institutional arrangements, but by a lack of adequate means of implementation. While Parties acknowledged that the adaptation architecture, from NAPs to the Global Goal on Adaptation and the Baku Adaptation Roadmap, is largely in place, developing countries stressed that progress on the ground will remain limited without predictable, grant-based, and accessible finance, strengthened technology transfer, and sustained capacity-building support. Calls for simplified access to climate finance, direct access modalities, and long-term funding commitments echoed across negotiating groups, underscoring a shared concern that implementation continues to lag behind ambition. In line with the principle of CBDR-RC, developing countries reiterated that developed countries must fulfil their obligations by providing the resources necessary to transform adaptation commitments into tangible resilience for vulnerable communities."
Talks on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and the Baku Adaptation Roadmap (BAR) suggested that adaptation is entering an implementation phase, though without a shared sense of what that implementation actually requires.
The BAR workshop revealed broad agreement on the need for greater coherence across the adaptation architecture and a shift from planning to delivery. At the same time, it surfaced deeper disagreements: developed countries tended to view BAR as a space for coordination and knowledge-sharing, while developing countries argued that implementation cannot be separated from finance, capacity-building, and technology transfer. There were also concerns that adaptation discussions could inadvertently introduce new conditions that make support harder to access for vulnerable countries.
“Adaptation discussions during this session appropriately focused on accelerating implementation through the various instruments and pathways, including the BAR and BAV. However, there remains a critical need for stronger and more explicit language that reflects the urgency of providing adequate means of implementation for the adaptation agenda. Deliberations should extend beyond issues of access to finance and address the source, quality, and form of financial support required. In particular, there is a need to secure new, additional, predictable, and grant-based finance at a scale commensurate with the growing adaptation needs of vulnerable countries and communities. Without a candid and substantive discussion on the provision of such support, efforts to advance adaptation implementation risk remaining largely aspirational, undermining the effectiveness and credibility of global adaptation commitments.”
On the GGA itself, Parties found common ground on several technical points, including moving forward with its operationalisation, setting up a technical Task Force under the Belém Adaptation Vision (BAV), and voluntary testing of the Belém Adaptation Indicators (BAI) to build practical experience ahead of GST2 and COP32. There was also agreement that indicators should remain voluntary and adaptable to national circumstances.
Two political questions remain open. The first is how the proposed Task Force should be governed, with developing countries favouring a Party-led structure with political oversight, and developed countries preferring a smaller, technical body with external experts focused on methodology and data. The second is whether means of implementation, finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building, should sit at the centre of GGA discussions, as developing countries argue, or be addressed separately through existing finance channels, as many developed countries prefer.
"As adaptation discussions enter an implementation phase, the central task ahead is to bridge differing perspectives on support, governance and delivery. Progress will depend on whether parties can build sufficient common ground to transform political ambition into practical action."
Just Transition
Week one’s discussions on just transition centred on three issues: the terms of reference for reviewing the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), the design of a proposed Just Transition Mechanism, and the key messages emerging from the sixth Just Transition Dialogue on food security, agriculture, and oceans.
On the JTWP review, many Parties supported extending the programme beyond COP31 and moving it beyond dialogue, though differences remain over how finance and implementation should factor into the review, whether the first Global Stocktake should inform its criteria, and how broad its scope should be. Some Parties want the review to focus on whether existing modalities, such as dialogues and round tables, are working, while others want it to assess whether the programme is actually helping countries develop and implement just transition pathways.
On the Just Transition Mechanism, Parties agreed on the need for a dedicated mechanism but diverged sharply on whether it should be tied to finance. Developing countries and civil society argued that the mechanism will only be meaningful if it helps mobilise public finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building. Others were more cautious, favouring a mechanism focused on coordination and learning without new financial obligations. Discussions also touched on governance, timelines, and how the mechanism should connect to existing UNFCCC workstreams, revealing two competing visions: one as a light-touch space for coordination and knowledge-sharing, the other as a stronger mechanism capable of helping countries design and deliver real transition pathways.
"A Just Transition Mechanism without finance is not a mechanism, it is another dialogue and risks reinforcing existing inequalities by asking developing countries to plan transitions without the resources to implement them. If SB64 is serious about implementation, the mechanism must unlock public finance, technical support and inclusive governance so countries can deliver real transition pathways that protect people, expand energy access and create decent jobs."
Gender Action Plan
The adoption of the Belém Gender Action Plan (GAP) at COP30 was a major step forward for gender-responsive climate action, and at SB64, technical expert dialogues have focused on good practice, methods, and tools for putting it into effect.
ACT Alliance and other allied networks has been clear that gender justice can no longer be treated as negotiable, it must be delivered. This means ensuring gender-disaggregated data in areas such as care, health, and gender-based violence, protecting women environmental defenders, and strengthening national gender and climate focal points.
Yet significant gaps remain. Gender-responsive climate action continues to be underfunded, especially in the most climate-vulnerable countries, and gender responsiveness still needs to become a mandatory feature of all climate policy, across finance, adaptation, mitigation, and just transition, rather than an optional add-on.
"We must not lose the momentum created by a united room at COP30 that agreed on the Belém Gender Action Plan. Despite differences, negotiators came together and delivered. Now, implementation is crucial, to ensure everyone's right to live with dignity and in a healthy environment."
Looking Ahead into Week 2
As negotiations enter their second week, several key tracks remain stuck in disagreements over process rather than substance. Two issues deserve particular attention.
First, both the Mitigation Work Programme and the new Climate Finance Work Programme are struggling. The same divide that shaped tensions at COP30 persists: developed countries remain reluctant to engage on climate finance, while some emerging economies are reluctant to engage on mitigation. Without a balanced way forward on both, these tensions risk escalating into larger political battles at COP31.
Second, adaptation should be one of the easiest areas for cooperation, given that climate impacts are already affecting every region and adaptation serves everyone’s interests. Yet even here, negotiations remain difficult.
"Week one has shown that finance remains the biggest obstacle to climate cooperation. Everyone talks about implementation, but implementation requires money. There is a real risk that unresolved disputes over finance and mitigation simply get pushed down the road to COP31. That would make an already difficult summit even harder. Adaptation should be the easiest issue on the table. No country benefits from droughts, floods or climate disasters. Yet even adaptation becomes politically difficult when finance is missing. The climate crisis is not waiting for negotiators. Every year of delay means higher costs, greater risks and more suffering for the most vulnerable communities."
Photo credit: Africa NDC Hub.
