Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
News

COP31 Update 7: Climate Finance, Debt Relief and Divisions Over Mitigation Dominate Talks

14 November 2026
Anna Szedlacsek

While on Wednesday disputes about adaptation finance already surfaced, during the fifth day of the UN Climate Conference (COP31) in Antalya, Türkiye, participants continued to disagree over support for vulnerable countries and international mitigation efforts. Although Friday’s (November 13) meetings led to new funding initiatives, negotiations failed to mobilise sufficient resources, while talks over responsibilities and the future direction of key climate programmes seem to have reached an impasse.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres used his final COP press conference as Secretary-General to call for fundamental reforms to the international financial system, arguing that climate disasters were reversing decades of development progress and pushing vulnerable countries further into debt. He warned that even tripling adaptation finance would cover less than 30% of global needs and urged international climate funds to simplify access to financial assistance. Guterres also called for a faster transition away from fossil fuels, arguing that governments could not credibly support the 1.5°C target while continuing to expand fossil fuel production.

Financial discussions made important, but very limited progress. Development finance institutions from the United Kingdom, Norway and Canada announced an initiative to mobilise $10 billion for climate projects in emerging markets by 2030. However, concerns remain about the wider funding gap: developed countries are expected to help mobilise at least $300 billion annually for developing nations by 2035, within a broader $1.3 trillion target, but current financing trends are expected to produce an annual shortfall of $840 billion against that larger objective.

Negotiations over the future of the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP), which aims to accelerate emissions reductions and the implementation of climate commitments, revealed significant divisions. Although most countries supported its continuation, they differed over its mandate, duration and institutional arrangements. Developing countries, including China, India and members of the African and Arab Groups, insisted that the programme must retain its existing safeguards, ensuring that discussions remain voluntary and do not impose new mitigation targets or undermine national sovereignty. They also argued that developed countries must provide greater financial and technological support to make climate action possible. In contrast, the European Union, United Kingdom and several other countries called for stronger links between the MWP and the Global Stocktake (GST), arguing that the programme, a Central part of the Paris Agreement, should help translate global climate assessments into more effective national action. Some also supported establishing a permanent mitigation committee to oversee the MWP. Further disagreements concerned whether the programme should continue beyond 2030 and how frequently its dialogues should take place. These differences left the future structure and direction of the programme unresolved.

Meanwhile, the Brazilian COP30 presidency formally presented its proposed global roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels. The COP31 presidency also circulated initial reflections on a possible overarching political declaration, although disagreements over its content and procedure persisted. Climate activists continued demanding debt cancellation, reparations and accountability from major polluters.

As the first week approached its conclusion, climate finance and the transition away from fossil fuels remained among the central unresolved issues, hindering participants' ability to match their rhetorical commitments with concrete action. 

Source: Anna Szedlacsek for commonspace.eu with Carbon Brief (London),  Third World Network (Penang) and UN News (New York).

 

You can read more about COP 31 in Antalya through regular updates prepared by Anna Szedlacsek

Update 1: A Summit Focused on Implementation, Electrification and Climate Finance here

Update 2: Summit Opens in Turkey Amid Growing Pressure to Turn Climate Commitments into Action here

Update 3: Global Push for Electrification Meets Turkey’s New Oil Discoveries here

Update 4: World leaders address Climate Summit in Antalya here

Update 5: Cities’ Resilience Grows, Adaptation Finance Disputes Persist here

Update 6: On Fourth Day Governments Announce New Climate Commitments Amidst Condemnation by Activists here

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut