The Climate Finance Work Programme (CFWP), now formally on the COP31 agenda, aims to strengthen scrutiny of developed countries’ obligations to provide climate finance to developing countries under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement.
Developing countries want a formal mandate, structured negotiations and concrete outcomes, including greater provision of public and concessional finance and clarity on the proposed tripling of adaptation finance. Developed countries favour continuing the existing process without reopening its mandate.
Disagreements over the programme's scope, duration and procedural arrangements remain unresolved, raising questions about whether it can deliver meaningful outcomes and inform the next global stocktake.
Climate finance remains the most contentious issue in international climate negotiations. This year, as COP31, the 31st UN climate summit gets underway in Antalya, Türkiye, two rounds of negotiations on the new agenda item on climate finance have already taken place. But discussions over its scope and procedural future remains unresolved.
Formally known as the “Climate Finance Work Programme on Article 9.1 in the context of Article 9 as a whole” (CFWP), it is regarded as a potential forum for high-level, political scrutiny of developed countries’ climate finance commitments to developing countries, including those under the new climate finance goal agreed upon at COP29 in Baku in 2024.
The CFWP was adopted as an agenda item for negotiation on day one at COP31 without significance opposition. However, developed countries including the EU noted “deep concern” about its transition from a “work programme”, or non-negotiated forum for discussion, into a formal “agenda item” with political weight and a place in the official negotiating process.
Some new demands, including developing countries’ call to triple adaptation finance, have also featured in the discussions.
The CFWP was originally proposed by Bolivia, for consideration at the mid-year climate talks in 2025, on behalf of the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) bloc. Its central argument is that the core obligation of developed countries to provide financial resources to developing countries remains unfulfilled even “a decade after the Paris Agreement” was adopted. Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement explicitly establishes developed countries’ legal obligation to provide climate finance to developing countries.
This obligation has been pursued through the US $100 billion goal, an outcome that developing countries considered to be a top-down decision at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. But the framework has since evolved to accommodate newer targets, such as the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance (NCQG) agreed upon in Baku in 2024, as well as assessments of developing countries’ latest financing needs.
The LMDC submission sought to hold developed countries accountable for inadequate follow through on their finance commitments. It also highlighted their disproportionate focus on Article 9.3, which calls for “mobilisation” of financial resources, including private finance.
At COP30 in Belem, the Brazilian Presidency included the demand as a “work programme” instead of an “agenda item”, in the “Global Mutirao” cover decision. The following mid-year climate talks in June saw a series of workshops held under its aegis. Even in June this year, developing countries rallied, though unsuccessfully, for the programme to be included in the provisional agenda of the next conference, facing opposition from developed-country groups.
The latter favour a broader discussion of climate finance, rather than one focused specifically on Article 9.1, so as to avoid “reopening” difficult questions from the NCQG negotiations. Though the programme has now secured a place on the official agenda in Antalya, longstanding disagreements over the provision and mobilisation of finance are resurfacing.
In the two discussions co-chaired by Georg Borsting of Norway and Yalchin Rafiyev of Azerbaijan, countries put forward their views on the process and scope of CFWP, alongside some “substantive” proposals concerning specific thematic areas.
At the first session, the Group of 77 and China — the largest negotiating bloc, representing 134 developing countries — called for countries to agree on the mode of work and scope of the programme before moving on to substantive discussions. Against the backdrop of historical declines in official development assistance (or development aid) from developed countries, the group highlighted that it “remains concerned with the insufficiency, inaccessibility and very low availability of climate finance [for developing countries].”
India, speaking on behalf of the LMDC group, called for the programme’s rules to be settled through a formal decision before substantive discussions began. It argued that the programme should deliver concrete outcomes, such as an action plan, rather than simply provide a forum for discussion. India reiterated developed countries’ obligations and called for more grant-based and concessional finance, a baseline against which to measure the proposed tripling of adaptation finance and a fairer distribution of the burden of providing finance among developed countries.
Nearly all countries supported discussing the proposed tripling of adaptation finance under CFWP. Developing country groups demanded clarity on the baseline year against which “tripling” of adaptation finance would be measured, while developed countries stressed that the issue should be discussed in the context of NCQG — that is, as part of the broader climate finance goal.
Beyond disagreements that have persisted since Bonn this year, including whether the programme should focus on the provision or mobilisation of finance, and whether the pool of contributors should be expanded, new points of contention have emerged in Antalya: scope and mandate.
Developing countries argue that the programme cannot properly begin until this year's COP adopts a formal decision setting out its scope, modalities and workplan. Developed countries, including the EU, Britain, Canada, Norway and Switzerland, contend that these matters were settled last year through the Belém Mutirão decision, and that the programme should simply continue into its second year.
The disagreement may reflect a mismatch in political priorities disguised as a procedural dispute.
As Bertha Argueta, senior policy and advocacy officer for climate justice at Eurodad, a network of civil society organisations, explained:
“This matters for two reasons. First, because the first year was an unstructured series of engagements that did not lead to any substantive outcome, and it happened without clarifying what the scope of the work programme should be. For developing countries, which want a substantive discussion and outcome on Article 9.1 and the provision of public climate finance from developed countries, this is understandably not acceptable. And second, because developing countries want this conversation to end and feed into the next global stocktake, and influence its outcome. Therefore, they want structured processes launched here that can take them there,” Argueta said.
“The suggestion by countries including the EU, UK and others implies that the work programme has been ongoing for one year already, and only one year remains. Whereas developing countries' position is that the work programme is to be launched at this COP, with a decision on its modalities and scope, and should run until COP33.” --Bertha Argueta, senior policy and advocacy officer for climate justice, Eurodad
Adaptation finance appears to be the issue on which countries on both sides so far found the most common ground. While negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation are also underway, with adaptation finance forming a central part of the discussions, CFWP “could have the role of decoding how that target should be delivered, as well as reported on, and other key technical details,” Argueta added.
The first draft text for consideration was circulated in the early hours of November 14 and ran to 104 paragraphs. Its opening paragraphs “welcome” the work of the co-chairs so far and look forward to their “second and final year in 2027”. This directly contradicts the positions of the G77 and China and LMDCs, as outlined above, while reflecting the preferences of developed countries, including the EU and UK.
Towards the end, however, the text offers three options for the timeframe: one beginning at COP31 and ending at COP33; another concluding in 2027 (COP32); and a third, more neutral option, based on “discussion among Parties”. While the text states that CFWP should focus on implementing Article 9.1, it also retains language on broadening the contributor base. As expected, it acknowledges the coherence between the ongoing Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) negotiations and the CFWP. Tripling adaptation finance is likely to remain the common ground emerging from Antalya in this negotiating track.