At the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2023, countries agreed to establish the UAE Dialogue on implementing the outcomes of the Global Stocktake (GST). It was also decided that this dialogue would run from the sixth to the tenth sessions (2024-2028) of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, also known as CMA.
The purpose of the UAE Dialogue is to identify opportunities and gaps in implementing all the outcomes of the GST and to explore ways to enhance finance, technology transfer, capacity-building and other forms of support that enable countries to meet their national climate goals — such as their Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans.
On the first day of UNFCCC's 62nd session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62), also known as Bonn Climate Conference, countries clashed over several key issues, including the scope, output, format and timing of the GST implementation dialogue. The largest bloc of developing countries — the G77 and China — along with the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and the African Group, insisted that the dialogue must place a strong focus on finance and technical support.
They argued that developed countries should honour their climate finance commitments, calling for explicit reference to Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement in the draft text. This article states: “Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.”
In this context, developing countries proposed that the dialogue should address identification of gaps, needs and opportunities related to the enhancement of adequate and concessional finance under Article 9. India, speaking on behalf of LMDCs, led interventions that called for greater recognition of equity in the GST outcomes. Many blocs echoed this call, demanding increased accountability in climate finance.
In contrast, several developed countries, such as the EU and the Environmental Integrity Group (comprising Switzerland, South Korea, Mexico, Liechtenstein, Monaco and Georgia), advocated for a broader scope to the UAE Dialogue, encompassing all GST outcomes including mitigation and adaptation.
These Parties supported annual sessions and proposed the production of yearly summary or synthesis reports to inform future processes and raise political attention, potentially through ministerial dialogues. They supported continuation of the dialogue through to 2028 and expressed concerns about “cherry-picking” articles of the Paris Agreement; a reference to the developing countries’ insistence on including Article 9.1.
These divisions extended to procedural issues as well. Developed country Parties proposed that the UAE Dialogue produce summary or synthesis reports after each session, capturing key messages, lessons learned and best practices to inform the next GST cycle. Developing countries opposed any mandatory summary output, arguing that it would create additional reporting burdens.
The final draft text also included a possible “high-level ministerial round table” at each dialogue, proposed by several developed countries, such as the EU. However, this received a mixed response from developing countries. A further point of contention was the timeline: Developed countries sought to schedule annual dialogues until 2028 in line with the next GST cycle, whereas developing countries preferred a one-off workshop or a limited series of meetings in 2026.
The discussions at SB62 revealed deep fault lines: a finance-focused approach versus a comprehensive approach covering all GST outcomes; inclusion versus exclusion of Article 9 of the Paris Agreement; prescriptive reporting versus informal dialogue; and a multi-year schedule versus a time-limited engagement.
SB62 concluded without agreement on the agenda concerning modalities for the UAE Dialogue on implementation of GST outcomes. Instead, co-facilitators circulated two versions of a draft text; One reflecting proposals from developing countries and another reflecting the positions of developed countries. The conclusion, read out by the SB chair during the closing plenary, underscored the divergence in views and the lack of consensus on this crucial agenda item.
The trajectory of the UAE Dialogue will now unfold at COP30 in Belem, Brazil later this year. Divisions may emerge over whether to explicitly reference Article 9.1 or to adopt a broader framing across sectors. Equally central will be the debate over whether the dialogue becomes a platform producing formal synthesis reports annually, or remains an informal and exploratory space. Talks on timeline and frequency of meetings will also require careful calibration, balancing the ambition of a sustained, multi-year process with the institutional and political bandwidth.