Cop29 live: tense day predicted as negotiators mull over new draft texts | Cop29

The draft text really is not going down well at Cop29 this morning. My colleague Patrick Greenfield has just been listening to the EU’s climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra who said it is “clearly unacceptable” in its current form.

Speaking at a press conference in Baku this morning, Hoekstra was asked for reaction to the lack of a clear figure on the climate finance – which currently just has an “X” for the target on the new collective quantified goal (NCQG).

“It is clearly unacceptable as it stands,” said Hoekstra, giving little else away.

Valvanera Ulargui, lead negotiator for Spain, said: “Our assessment is not very positive. We don’t think the texts are balanced. There is some good progress on elements like adaptation, gender and a just transition which are very, very important for us and were stuck on Monday.

“On the contrary, the main pillars to keep 1.5 within reach – mitigation and finance – are not acceptable for us. We have been vocal since the beginning that we need a strong outcome on mitigation beyond what we agreed last year in Dubai on process and on substance.

“On finance, we don’t see the text as an attempt to compromise. We can build upon the qualitative elements that are crucial for developing countries. But we need the presidency to present – rapidly – a new text on structure and quantum that really represents a basis for negotiation,” she said.

My colleague Fiona Harvey has a fascinating take on a complex but important development that has emerged in Baku overnight.

There will be no cover text at Cop29, the host country’s lead negotiator repeated on Wednesday. For Cop aficionados, that might seem extraordinary – the cover text has been a key document in several recent Cops.

At Cop26 in Glasgow in 2021, for instance, the cover decision text contained the crucial resolutions to limit global heating to 1.5C and to “phase down” coal (not “phase out”, at the last minute insistence of China and India).

At Cop27 in Sharm El Sheikh in 2022, the cover text disappointed many because it did not contain words on the phase out of fossil fuels, which more than 80 countries had pushed for.

Cover texts are a kind of catch-all document for Cops (which stands for “conference of the parties” under the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). Some of the business of Cops is dictated in advance by the requirements of the 2015 Paris agreement, or its parent treaty the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

So, for instance, the Cops from 2016 to 2019 were largely taken up with sorting out the “Paris rulebook”, or deciding exactly how the agreement should operate in practice. (This was supposed to include the operation of carbon trading markets, covered by Article 6, and the operation of “loss and damage” funding, covered by Article 8, but these were both delayed.)

Decisions required under the Paris agreement need their own negotiating strand, and their own text which is ratified by a Cop. But a Cop cover text can capture issues that are important to countries – such as a phase-out of fossil fuels – but that are not necessarily required under the treaties.

This format enables Cops to be flexible, and reflect the fact that progress on the climate crisis needs to happen on multiple fronts, which can change year by year depending on global circumstances, and so cannot be foreseen in advance under the treaties. Cover texts can be unwieldy, but they are a key vehicle for countries to make commitments that build on the underlying agreements, and can themselves be built upon in future years.

The reason a cover text, or the lack of one, is important at Cop29 is because there has been a row over a key resolution reached last year.

At Cop28 in Dubai in 2023, the Paris agreement required a “global stocktake” – that is, an assessment of how well or badly the world was doing on the Paris agreement goals. So a decision text on the global stocktake was the key outcome of that conference, which the hosts branded the “UAE Consensus”.

That decision text committed countries to “transition away from fossil fuels” (in paragraph 28). It may not seem much of an achievement for a conference on the climate to recognise that fossil fuels are the main culprit in the climate crisis, but it had taken 30 years to pass such a resolution, largely because of the intransigence of petro states, such as Saudi Arabia, on the issue.

No sooner was that decision signed at Cop28 than Saudi proceeded to try to unpick it. First, representatives of the country tried to present the “transition away from fossil fuels” as just one option of many, and not one that countries were obliged to follow. Then the country gathered its allies, many of whom form a loose grouping known as the Like Minded Developing Countries, at the lead-up meetings to Cop29 to try to ensure the issue was sidelined.

When delegates arrived in Baku, the row continued. Saudi attempted to have “paragraph 28” excluded from the main discussions, by shunting it off into a sidetrack on finance. Other countries objected and insisted it was put back in the mainstream. The row escalated to the point where there were threats by the LMDC to invoke “rule 16” which means curtailing discussions completely and postponing them to next year.

So far, according to insiders who have spoken to the Guardian, the Azerbaijani Cop presidency has failed to take control of the issue. Many countries are furious at the behaviour of the Saudis and the LMDC. If Cops continually unpick progress in this fashion, it will become impossible to fulfil the Paris agreement. And to row back on hard-won progress – such as “transitioning away from fossil fuels” – will damage urgent global efforts to cut greenhous gas emissions.

If there is to be no cover text, the presidency will have to ensure that Cop29 has some means of affirming the “transition away from fossil fuels” – or see the Cop process made a mockery of by a small number of recalcitrant countries.

In the COP29 halls on Thursday morning, activists called for rich nations to “pay up, pay up, pay up for climate finance.”

Those dollars should be put toward a swift and just phaseout of fossil fuels, they said.

And there is more reaction coming in to today’s draft text.

Stephen Cornelius, WWF Deputy Global Climate and Energy Lead, said:

The text is narrowing, but so is time to reach a final agreement. Negotiators and ministers need to pick up the pace, ramp up their diplomacy and drive consensus around an ambitious climate finance deal. The lack of a finance target in this draft is a worrying sign that the most challenging decisions are being left to the last minute. Despite being slimmed down, two vastly different options for the design of the NCQG remain in the text, leaving the final outcome uncertain.

This agreement will decide the climate finance landscape for years to come. We simply can’t afford to get this wrong. Without adequate finance for climate solutions, we won’t be able to prevent catastrophic climate impacts. It is essential we get an outcome here capable of unleashing climate action at speed and scale around the world.

Rob Moore, associate director at E3G and a former climate finance official for UK government, said:

This text maps out a broad option outlining the vision expressing views by developed countries, and one outlining the vision expressed by developing countries. The lack of a clear bridging proposal and any numbers leaves negotiators with a huge amount of progress to make over the next day or two and the road to agreement will need to see rapid and candid engagement, with numbers on the table. The inclusion of a review mechanism might offer a bridging mechanism if countries can’t agree a goal that fully meets the needs of developing countries this COP.

The new draft text is not going down well with many in Baku this morning. My colleague Patrick Greenfield has just sent this through from Oscar Soria, the director of the Common Initiative thinktank, said:

The NCQG’s negotiating placeholder ‘X’ for climate finance is a testament of the ineptitude from rich nations and emerging economies that are failing to find a workable solution for everyone. This is a dangerous ambiguity: inaction risks turning ‘X’ into the symbol of extinction for the world’s most vulnerable. Without firm, ambitious commitments, this vagueness betrays the Paris Agreement’s promise and leaves developing nations unarmed in their fight against climate chaos.

And Li Shuo, the director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said:

“We are far from the finish line. The new finance text presents two extreme ends of the aisle without much in between. Crucially, the text misses a number that defines the scale of future climate finance, a prerequisite for negotiation in good faith. Other than capturing the ground standing of both sides, this text hardly does anything more.”

And the Guardian Australia climate and environment editor has this from Barbara Rosen Jacobson, senior advisor at Mercy Corps:

We are one day away from the end of COP29, and after years of negotiations, it is unacceptable that the latest draft of the NCQG still reflects clear divisions and lacks clarity on how to bridge the gaps. The Global North must stop stalling and start compromising.

The absence of any options for a sub-goal for adaptation is a major problem. Without dedicated finance, adaptation will remain grossly underfunded, with the current adaptation finance gap estimated at US$187-359 billion annually. Similarly, the lack of strong provisions for Loss and Damage is deeply concerning. For vulnerable countries, Loss and Damage represents the irreversible impacts of climate change—such as the destruction of homes and loss of livelihoods. Securing predictable and additional finance for this is an existential need. Yet, the draft text offers no robust framework, specific targets, or mechanisms to ensure such finance, leaving vulnerable countries reliant on fragmented and inadequate systems.

Developed countries must deliver on their legal obligations by ensuring the final text includes a goal in the trillions—in grants or grant-equivalent—from developed to developing countries, alongside a fair burden-sharing mechanism. This is not just about financial commitments; it’s about climate justice. The final NCQG text must deliver for the millions of people bearing the brunt of a crisis they did not cause.

Dharna Noor

Welcome