COP31 Finance Talks Stall as Developing Nations Seek Clear Rules on Wealthy Countries’ Climate Funding Duties

At COP31, a dispute over climate finance has returned to the negotiating table. Developing countries want commitments, while wealthy nations question how the talks should proceed and what they should cover now.

Countries at COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye, remain divided over how to examine developed nations’ obligations to provide climate finance to developing countries, with disagreement over the process threatening to delay substantive discussions. Two rounds of talks have taken place under the Climate Finance Work Programme on Article 9.1, but its scope, rules and duration are unsettled.

The programme, known as CFWP, was placed on the official negotiating agenda. The European Union and other developed countries expressed concern that a discussion forum was becoming a formal agenda item with political weight.

The issue centres on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which establishes developed countries’ obligation to provide financial resources to developing nations. Developing countries say that commitment remains unfulfilled. They want the programme to examine the provision of public finance, rather than allowing attention to shift towards mobilising private investment.

The debate also concerns the new climate finance goal agreed at COP29 in Baku in 2024.

Developing countries want a defined process

Bolivia first proposed the programme in 2025 on behalf of the Like Minded Developing Countries bloc. At COP30 in Belém, the Brazilian presidency included it as a work programme in the Global Mutirão decision, rather than as a formal agenda item. Workshops followed at the mid-year climate talks in June, but developing countries failed to secure its inclusion on the provisional agenda for COP31.

At the first Antalya discussion, the Group of 77 and China, representing 134 developing countries, called for agreement on the programme’s scope and working methods before substantive negotiations began. The group raised concerns about climate finance being insufficient, difficult to access and poorly available, particularly as official development assistance from developed countries has declined.

India, speaking for the LMDC group, called for a formal decision setting out the programme’s rules before detailed discussions proceed. It wants concrete outcomes, potentially including an action plan. India also pressed for more grant-based and concessional finance, a baseline for measuring a proposed tripling of adaptation finance, and a fairer distribution of responsibility among developed countries.

The proposed tripling of adaptation finance has emerged as an area of broad agreement. Developing countries want clarity on the year against which the increase would be measured. Developed countries, however, argue that the question should be handled within the wider climate finance goal agreed at Baku.

Dispute over mandate clouds the next steps

A deeper disagreement concerns how long the programme should run. Developing countries want COP31 to adopt a decision on its scope, procedures and workplan, with the programme continuing until COP33. The EU, Britain, Canada, Norway and Switzerland say these arrangements were already addressed in the Belém decision and that the work should simply continue into its second year.

Bertha Argueta of Eurodad said the first year lacked structure and produced no substantive outcome. Developing countries want a more organised process that can feed into the next global stocktake, she said.

A draft text circulated on November 14 contains 104 paragraphs. It welcomes the co-chairs’ work and refers to a second and final year in 2027, reflecting the developed-country position. However, it presents three possible timelines: ending at COP33, concluding in 2027 at COP32, or leaving the timeframe to further discussion among countries.

The draft says the programme should focus on implementing Article 9.1 while retaining language on broadening the contributor base. It also recognises links with negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation. The proposed increase in adaptation finance may therefore offer the clearest point of common ground, even as countries remain divided over the programme’s mandate and future in Antalya.