Cop29 live: EU climate commissioner says draft text ‘clearly unacceptable in current form’ | Cop29

More from my colleague Patrick Greenfield, who is still following the plenary where countries give their formal response to the draft text.

Next up is Pakistan

“An ambitious outcome on the New Collective Quantified Goal [NCQG] is specifically important for us due to the impact of flooding which devastated the countries,” says the representative, bemoaning the lack of a specific number.

“We do not agree to any specific allocation to a specific group of countries as it is unfair.” She says that Pakistan must have unconditional access to money. Mentioning domestic financing as a source of finance remains a concern, she says.

Zambia, stealing Yemen’s spot

On the NCQG, Zambia says they are “extremely concerned and sad” that there is no number given in the text. “We wish to reiterate that they need a number that reflects the need of countries to develop climate change.” The required resources are in trillions of dollars and that the $1.3tn per year to 2030 are needed, they say. They want resources that reflect the realities on the ground.

“We are counting on your leadership” he concludes. “We want Baku to deliver on its expectation that it’s a finance Cop.”

New Zealand

Environment minister Simon Watts says: “Across the board, NZ is deeply frustrated with the pace of progress being made. Many texts presented over night do not move us forward. It is unacceptable that mitigation outcomes are not being taken up.”

“It is not acceptable to restrict the scope of this dialogue to cherry-picking outcomes.”

Watts says that the text only reflects two extreme outcomes on the NCQG and is not bringing countries together, the text needs iteration rapidly with a focus on bringing parties together. Multiple rapid iteration are going to be needed, he says. We are still optimistic that we can land a successful outcome”

Germany steps up now

Jennifer Morgan, the climate envoy: “We are deeply disappointed with the text on mitigation.” It offers “no progress” she says. “This cannot be our response to the suffering of millions of people around the world.”

“The world needs to know where we stand and what we are doing – individually and collectively – to implement the GST outcome on mitigation.”

“We want to see clear messages here on the next NDC – absolute economy wide emission reductions.”

The Cop29 presidency has issued a statement defending the draft text that came out overnight and which has received widespread criticism this morning for not containing a concrete figure for climate finance.

The statement says: “The next iteration – to be released tonight – will be shorter and will contain numbers based on our view of possible landing zones for consensus.”

Here it is in full:

The COP29 Presidency has published a first set of substantially streamlined texts on critical mandates, including the NCQG. These documents come as a package with finance at the centre, they recall and take forward the outcomes of the first Global Stocktake, and they contain options to address the key concerns of all groups.

They are not final. The COP29 Presidency’s door is always open, and we welcome any bridging proposals that the Parties wish to present. We are spending the day engaging with everyone.

On the NCQG, we did not believe that presenting a wide range of numbers for the financial goal would be useful in this text. The next iteration – to be released tonight – will be shorter and will contain numbers based on our view of possible landing zones for consensus.

We are now in the endgame and we believe that a breakthrough in Baku is in sight. Everyone must engage with the texts and with each other so that they are ready to make the ambitious choices we all need.

In a small press gaggle on Thursday, US officials declined to comment on the draft texts released at Cop29 this morning and instead touted the accomplishments of the Biden administration.

“When we came into office there were zero commercial offshore wind projects in federal waters off the United States,” said Laura Daniel-Davis, acting deputy secretary of the country’s interior department. Now the nation’s first 10 have been approved, with a total capacity of more than 15 gigawatts of “clean, renewable energy,” she said.

Rick Spinrad, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, said the administration have been “extraordinary environmental stewards while we are fostering economic development.

“And that’s not necessarily always been the case, said Spinrad, who is also the administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

They said the progress toward decarbonization will continue under Trump, echoing the studiously optimistic rhetoric we have heard from US officials since Cop29 began.

“Denying climate change is not going to make it go away, and if the US government does not continue to lead, we know in the United States that states and tribes and local communities will,” said Daniel-Davis. “It is truly up to every single one of us to move our collective work forward to the benefit of workers, communities, families, for a safer planet for all of us.”

For more on US’ officials response to the Trump administration at Cop29, check out my story from this week.

Today’s discussions are centring on climate finance – in simple terms how much money rich countries, largely responsible for driving the climate crisis, will give to poorer nations to cope with the reality of the crisis and to develop in a sustainable way.

As the negotiations roll on here are a couple of articles by Fiona Harvey explaining the background [and some of the endless jargon these conferences throw up]

My colleague Patrick Greenfield is following the plenary where countries give their formal response to the draft text.

Cop29 president Mukhtar Babayev gets the plenary started. He asks countries to give their thoughts on the latest iterations of text to inform future versions. He says that with collective effort, he believes that the summit can be finished by 6pm tomorrow.

The Azeri lead negotiator strikes a less optimistic tone, underscoring that there is still a long way to go until there is a deal before giving the floor to countries to give their responses.

First up is the European Union.

“Forgive me, but I’m not going to sugarcoat it.” says climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra.

Imbalances, unworkable and unacceptable, they say. Let’s look at the world and what is happening in terms of climate disasters. It is the grim reality that shows that we need to do more on mitigation, says Hoekstra, calling for more ambition on mitigation in the text.

He says the EU will continue to lead on the climate but hints that the donor base needs to expand once again. “Everyone that can should contribute,” he says.

We need to prioritise the poorest countries, says Hoekstra.

“Could I please urge you to step up the leadership” he concludes.

Australia is next on behalf of the Umbrella group

Chris Bowen, the country’s environment minister, says that their group needs to have stronger language on the energy transition. “This is a big step back and it is not acceptable at this current moment of crisis”. He says that it needs to reiterate language on tripling renewables, which was included in the Dubai text last year.

Speaking now on behalf of Australia only… They do not accept proposals to track finance from developed to developing countries.

“There is much work left to do” saying that they must reenforce the messages of last year.

Samoa now… on behalf of small island states

“We cannot afford to undermine the progress made a year ago in Dubai. It need needs to protect the space for deep emission mitigation.”
For AOSIS, the package must be in line with 1.5C he says. On the NCQG, he says there is a critical piece missing: the overall number.

On mitigation, the current text is severely lacking in ambition. The text does not cover the fulls scope of issues that they have been discussing, they say.

Uganda on behalf of the G77 and China.

“Thank you for your leadership” in contrast to the EU comments earlier.

“THe G77 and China has been very clear that we should not leave Baku without a number. We are presenting a figure of 1.3trn by 2030. Our disappointment so far is that our development partners have not responded so far. We need a figure as a headline. People outside this room are expecting us to come up with that. Mr president, the NCQG is not an investment goal but this text focuses on investment flows. This should not be the case. There is also still references about domestic finance which we do not agree with. This goes beyond the mandate in this room.

We highlight the need for loss and damage. Let me also emphasise that the goal is the sole obligation of developed countries, as per the Paris agreement.”

“Climate actions and transition strategies must align with sustainable developed goals. They should not hinder the prospects of developing countries.”

Damian Carrington

“We are many and they are few,” warn Global South campaigners

As the negotiations about how much climate finance the rich world should pay to the poor nations suffering in the climate crisis they did not cause, campaigners have highlighted that the vast majority of humanity live in the Global South and said the Global North owes a huge climate debt.

Omar Elmawi, Africa Climate Movement Building Space, said:

“It is like going to an excellent doctor, and they tell you what the problem is but refuse to give you the medicine to cure it – that’s what’s happening. There is no climate action without finance.

It would be funny if this wasn’t actually happening in the world, but the people most affected are people from the Global South and – we’re not saying this as often as we should – those are the majority of the world: over 6 billion people

It’s very wrong that the global north, the people that have contributed significantly to the problem, come here for the past 10 days and have discussions that are leading to nothing

We are enraged. We are mortified, but we are not hopeless. We know that we are many and they are few. We know we still have about two days to go [at Cop29], and we promise them they are going to see the full might of the Global South in these corridors.

In Africa, we have a saying that when a herd of cows is slow, the ones that are slowing them down are the ones at the front, but the ones that get killed are the ones at the back. The global south is made up over 130 countries that are [at the back].”

Jacobo Ocharan, at Climate Action Network International, said:

“The Global North must start repaying the overdue [climate] debt of trillions of dollars.”

But the ray of hope is that everything is still open. We have enough negotiationing elements in the text to have a climate finance goal that will meet the needs of the most affected countries and communities by this crisis and help to restore the trust between the Global North and Global South.”

Harjeet Singh, from the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative says the lack of “concrete figure” in the draft text underscores frustrations raised by developing country representatives of the G77, the Africa Group of Negotiators and Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC).

At a press conference held on Wednesday the groups expressed their disappointment with a lack of political among developed nations which had failed to offer substantial financial commitments to support developing nations in their efforts to reduce emissions, adapt to the adverse impacts of climate crisis and address loss and damage suffered.

Singh added: “The revised draft text… recognises the need to prioritise grants but remains silent on the critical scale of the new finance goal, instead shifting pressure onto developing countries to mobilise more domestic resources. We must focus not only on the vast sums required—trillions, as acknowledged—but on ensuring these funds are provided as grants, not loans, to shield nations most impacted by climate change from further financial burdens. Alarmingly, the text lacks clear financial sub-goals for mitigation, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage—areas where needs have skyrocketed while resources remain scarce. True support for a just transition away from fossil fuels must include robust public finance, not hollow words.”

In response to the latest text on climate finance, Laurie van der Burg, Oil Change International Global Public Finance Manager, said it was “a mixed bag with good, bad and ugly options.”

“Rich countries now have a last chance to step up to pay the climate debt they owe to the Global South and unlock a fair and funded fossil fuel phaseout, while barring dangerous distractions. Wealthy nations must support delivering the trillions urgently needed in public finance with the majority provided debt-free, which is currently on the table.”

He added the draft text calls “to reduce investment flows towards fossil fuel infrastructure, while acknowledging the need for certain investments, including towards repurposing and futureproofing infrastructure being compatible with a 1.5°C pathway.”

Allowing for continued investments in fossil fuel infrastructure, said van der Burg, is “fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement.”

Draft text “clearly unacceptable as it stands,” says EU climate commissioner

Patrick Greenfield

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.

There will be no cover text at Cop29

Fiona Harvey

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.

Thursday is sure to be a tense day at Cop29, as negotiators mull over new draft texts released early this morning. The document came as negotiators have been tasked with answering this summit’s key question: how much should rich countries pay for developing countries to cope with the climate crisis and decarbonize their economies? (You can check out my colleague Fiona Harvey’s stellar primer on the proposed answers here.)

No one can seem to agree on a solution, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that the text marks the figure with an “[X]” to be hashed out later — something some advocates are already reacting to with ire.

“The text caricatures developed and developing country positions on what the main goal should be.” Joe Thwaites, senior advocate of international climate finance at the NGO Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement Thursday morning.

The draft contains two options for the goal, one with developing countries’ priorities and one with developed countries’.

Mohamed Adow, the director of the environmental justice group Power Shift Africa, said: “The elephant in the room is the lack of specific numbers in the text.”

“We came here to talk about money. The way you measure money is with numbers,” he said. “We need a cheque but all we have right now is a blank piece of paper.”

At Cop29, the proposals, jargons, and numbers — or, in this case, lack thereof — can all be a bit dizzying. But the stakes are high.

“This agreement will decide the climate finance landscape for years to come,” Stephen Cornelius, deputy global climate and energy lead at the NGO World Wildlife Fund, said this morning. “Without adequate finance for climate solutions, we won’t be able to prevent catastrophic climate impacts.”

Negotiators will have their work cut out for them in the coming days. Can they come to an agreement? David Waskow, a director at the nonprofit environmental group World Resources Institute, says they can.

“If parties really do work hard in the next 48 to 72 hours, I think it’s absolutely plausible that we’ll see an outcome here, and parties are know that they need to deliver that,” he said on a Thursday morning press call.

For those keeping track, on paper, Thursday should be the second-to-last day of Cop29, but UN climate summits tend to run long. Often, exhausted delegates hold negotiations into the wee hours of the weekend nights. That does not bode well for our sleeping schedules, so keep the Guardian’s on-the-ground team in your thoughts!

Good morning. It’s day ten at Cop29, and I’m Matthew Taylor, and we will be following developments from Baku on what should be the second to last day of the climate conference. Please get in touch with ideas or suggestions at matthew.taylor@theguardian.com