During my second day at the COP29, I decided to look at the High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on Adaptation finance. I was surprised to witness a session that sounded much like the first one. Every speech seemed like an opening statement calling for goodwill to cooperate, referring to some data on climate change impacts, and -in the least of cases- discussing some actions.

I tried to understand what was happening and I thought of these two options: either they already had a draft they were not showing at that moment (that would explain the slow pace of the session despite being so close to the final day of negotiations) or they were ready to postpone decisions. It appeared they were there to talk out loud so the press in their respective countries would have material about them addressing climate-change issues, but not necessarily making specific commitments. That is what the group concluded as well during dinner that day.

The sentiment of a COP29 that was looking forward to COP30 was louder. And, from the decision maker’s perspective, I understood that. Among other factors, the negotiators are facing uncertainty regarding what the next US administration is going to do on these matters. f they make big decisions now despite such an unstable basis, the risk of discontent and envy from the next US administration to leave the table would be greater.

After that, I headed to the Delegations pavilions. There, I feel, we could find the proof that not everything is decided in the UNFCCC negotiations and that bilateral cooperation, public-private partnerships, academia, and ONG have advanced and will continue to look for options. That day, I attended the presentations on building resilient infrastructure in Brazil and India (the latter, in the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure -CRDI- pavilion). In both cases, mapping, monitoring, and design of resilient infrastructure were fundamental, however, the CRDI highlighted the need to perform risk assessment during the infrastructure lifecycle. I could not help but think about this need in Mexico, my home country.

The next day, I spent a few hours in the China pavilion, where they handled the “Enterprise Day”. I was surprised listening to US and Chinese officials talk together about what they have done and what they can do together to enhance climate change. They specifically presented 3 joint reports on circular economy derived from the tasks of the U.S.-China Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s. The first report was focused on Eco-design Guidelines and Voluntary standards for Plastic Products; the second on Remanufacturing; and the third on Circularity and Efficiency Improvements in Construction Materials.

Despite disagreements on trade and even on the quantum and sources of the new collective quantified goal, it was interesting to see how these two countries still joined efforts to improve practices in large emitter industries. Of course, major commitment and actions are needed from the bigger emitters, but it was somewhat refreshing to see that not everything is lost.