HOLY SEE gets booed for its statement on gender and climate.

"...any reference to gender-related terms in any document that has been or that will be adopted by the COP or its subsidiary bodies is to be understood as grounded on the biological sexual identity that is male and female."

As for the Baku to Belem roadmap – the language has remained pretty much the same as in the previous draft.

It "takes note of" the roadmap, rather than "welcoming" it as was suggested in an earlier version.

The text also "reaffirms" the wider call for "all actors" to strive towards $1.3tn.

On the key "tripling adaptation finance" pledge – the target is now for 2035, not 2030.

Also, as Aruna notes – from what levels?

The previous text specified that this was from a 2025 baseline, but that has been deleted... Now this is possibly open to interpretation?

bsky.app/profile/arun...

This footnote has been retained, stating that this work programme won't "prejudge" the way in which the big 2035 climate finance target is met.

The outcome will likely be welcomed by the 🇪🇺EU and other developed countries, who have stressed the importance of all parts of Article 9 – including "mobilised" finance.

They have resisted a focus on the more limited 9.1, which puts more pressure on their public coffers.

In this paragraph about "cost-effectiveness", Kenya has argued for language that references high costs in Geneva.

It wants the text to say that this harms the Santiago Network's provision of technical assistance to developing countries.

This text would launch a "Belem Mission to 1.5C" that would essentially replicate the Baku to Belem Roadmap to 1.3T but for mitigation and adaptation, not finance.

Since the experience of the BBR went so well...?!

And Article 9.5 - where parties discussed developed countries reporting on future finance.

The extra reporting that developing countries wanted - e.g. loss and damage finance, intended recipients, plans for budgetary reforms to boost finance - have been removed.

bsky.app/profile/josh...

As for other texts beyond the overarching Mutirao Decision...

Article 2.1c financial flows talks had stalled over whether or not to continue talking..

Final text - parties have decided to keep talking under something called the "Veredas Dialogue" (Portuguese for "paths")

bsky.app/profile/josh...

"Recalls" the decision made last year to triple finance from big UNFCCC climate funds and "calls for" for effort to do this.

Also mentions a ministerial event on implementing the finance goal from last year – focusing on the quantify but also quality of finance provided.

Text "takes note" of the Baku to Belem roadmap to $1.3tn, but nothing about workstreams or "taking forward the recommendations" from the roadmap, as in the previous iteration of the text...

ADAPTATION - text "recalls" the COP26 decision that "urged" developed countries to "at least double" adaptation finance provision by 2025

But rather than "urging" it "calls" for "efforts" to triple adaptation finance by 2030. Only "urges" developed countries to increase adaptation finance broadly

There is also a footnote under that paragraph stressing that this programme must not "prejudge" the process of meeting the new climate finance target, which was agreed last year and includes climate finance directly provided and mobilised from private sources.