The following statement was delivered during the Climate Finance Work Programme Engagement Workshop among Non-Party Stakeholders on June 12 2026 on behalf of the ENGO-DCJ constituency during the 64th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):

I am Aleijn Reintegrado from ENGO-DCJ.

We are disappointed that the Climate Finance Work Programme has conflated provision and mobilisation into one guide question. We take this conflation of two different articles in the Paris Agreement — Article 9.1 and Article 9.3 — also as a direct result of the lack of an open and honest discussion on the scope and modalities of the work programme. A discussion on scope and modalities, which was left unfinished last 8th of June, must take place before we proceed to the substantives of the work programme and before we even begin to count its duration. 

If we recall, this work programme was a result of the agenda item proposal on the implementation of Article 9.1 at COP 30 in Belem, supported by developing countries as G77 and China, which was straightforward in its purpose and scope on the legal obligations and commitments of developed countries to provide climate finance to developing countries, “in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention” as provided by Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. This is the spirit of the Belem decision.

We stand firm that the work programme must have a clear focus, and lead to concrete outcomes, on the implementation of Article 9.1. This includes reporting by developed countries on their targets and timelines for providing public, grants-based climate finance to developing countries. This requires, in particular, agreement on a common definition and standardised accounting of climate finance, as well as regular reporting of the progress of the work programme and the implementation of Article 9.1 to the CMA. In their biennial transparency reports (BTRs), we see some developed countries classifying Official Development Assistance (ODA) as climate finance – however, as the Convention provides, climate finance is new and additional.

Taking Article 9.1 “in the context of Article 9 as a whole” should in no way be interpreted to mean that Article 9.1 can only be discussed in relation to encouraging voluntary contributions from developing country Parties under Article 9.2, or to mobilising the private sector under Article 9.3. Mobilisation cannot be used to mask inadequate provision. Private finance cannot be used to substitute for public obligations. Conflating the two weakens accountability, shifts the burden of climate finance to developing country Parties, and compromises the balance of legal obligations agreed in the Paris Agreement. 

Article 9.1 is also at the heart of access and transparency. Reliance on the private sector under Article 9.3 will prevent access for a lot of developing countries perceived as high risk and unprofitable. The private sector is also not a Party to the UNFCCC and cannot be held accountable. The private sector does not have robust mechanisms necessary for transparency, grievance resolution, and stakeholder engagement. The “private sector first approach” has been tried and failed for over a decade and it is not delivering the scale, quality, or distribution of climate finance needed. Private finance cannot deliver public goods and cannot fulfill public interests.

Taking the issue of access further, current climate finance is accessed disproportionately by international and regional financial institutions. We demand simplified approval processes, enhanced direct access, dedicated windows for community-led and locally led action, small grants, readiness support for local institutions, and stronger accountability mechanisms in the climate funds. Climate finance must be adequate, public, non-debt-creating, and also rights-based, gender-just, and accessible to those most affected.

We want to see the CFWP focus on Article 9.1, and be included as a CMA agenda item under Matters relating to Finance, since it is established by the Belem Global Mutirao CMA decision and it was in the context of an agenda item proposal on Implementation of Article 9.1.