We are midway through the COP29 cycle of Earth Diplomacy Leadership workshops, and the presentations and discussions so far have surfaced a lot of important insights around what is on the table and what is at stake in Baku. There are now thematic resource libraries attached to each of the first two session pages:

• Session 1: The Process
• Session 2: The Stakes

Below, we offer a few highlights, to catch you up on the discussions and provide some background for Session 3 on Enhancing Multilateral Cooperation and Session 4 on Negotiating for Mutual Gains.

1. First of all is the core insight, shared by all presenters so far, which is that climate diplomacy requires everyone to get beyond the constraints of zero-sum thinking.
2. In discussing what is at stake, Prof. Mizan Khan noted the important practical reality of vulnerability interdependence: the failure of any nation to both mitigate and adapt at the speed and scale required will create risks and costs for everyone else.
3. The Illusion of Immunity has resurfaced as a key theme: While historically, it has been possible to say the United States and other wealthy countries can absorb the massive costs of severe climate impacts, the costs of individual events are starting to be measurable as percentages of total GDP, even in the world’s largest economy. One recent storm, Hurricane Helene, is now estimated to eventually generate traceable costs of $250 billion. For perspective, that is roughly 30% of the entire US Defense budget and two-thirds of the total amount the US Inflation Reduction Act is projected to invest in clean energy over ten years.
4. Ripple effects of climate impacts also add significant further cost. For instance, the IRA is projected to bring more than $5 trillion in climate-related benefits by 2050; what is the opportunity cost be if those investments are not made due to climate-related fiscal stresses? Small island nations can see their entire economy set back decades by one extreme weather event. Credit ratings are also downgraded not only by borrowing to address climate impacts, but by the damage to infrastructure and fiscal stability resulting from the climate impacts themselves.
5. Even so, the reality of spatial and temporal disconnect between cause and effect moving through the climate system, Prof. Khan reminded workshop participants, makes it difficult to rally whole nations and industries to action. It is too easy to judge the cost or benefit of a decision by assuming the costs happen elsewhere, or far in the future. 
6. A new mindset of cooperative future-building is needed, if national plans around development, trade, security, and prosperity, are to remain on track.
7. Finance is a complex and far-reaching subject, where even the definition of finance is up for consideration. It is clearly unsustainable and unfair to require “nano-emitting” countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts to become indebted to those that profit from climate change-inducing pollution, just to have the ability to respond to climate impacts.
8. Dr. Nfamara Dampha highlighted the importance of the UAE-Belem Work Programme on Indicators, which starts from 11 overall targets for measuring progress on the Global Goal on Adaptation and has now gathered input on more than 7,000 potential indicators.
9. Dr. Dampha also added the very clear, essential insight that the least developed, lowest emitting, and most vulnerable countries, should never have to borrow money for disaster response or adaptation, that grant-based finance is most appropriate, ethical, and effective, in such cases. 
10. While reform of multilateral finance institutions is not governed by the UNFCCC, there are high-stakes interactions between the two, and the Baku negotiations can and should highlight those interactions and support more inclusive, accessible, just, and balanced exchange of value through the MFI system.
11. An increasingly clear area of need is for community-level participation in climate-related decision-making. Stakeholder insights on needs, aspirations, practical constraints, and operational capacities, make official choices more relevant, rooted, and replicable, adding efficiency to decision-making processes. A key question is which modalities work best in which circumstances, and how the UNFCCC process can prioritize or facilitate such engagement.
12. Article 6 of the Convention and Article 12 of the Paris Agreement—the Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) agenda—provide important opportunities for mainstreaming participation in climate decision-making.
13. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement holds both risks and opportunities for the speed of climate crisis response, and for the wellbeing of people, especially in marginalized and frontline communities. It is notable that standards have been adopted by the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body for carbon markets, and environmental and human rights safeguards are mandatory. There is still concern about whether carbon market arrangements will be set up in a way that disadvantages indigenous, vulnerable, and/or frontline communities and other affected parties. Separately, Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement calls for “non-market” cooperation—essentially inviting cooperation in all areas that do not include carbon markets. (This will be explored further in Session 3, on Enhancing Multilateral Cooperation.)
14. A core question is whether the COP29 can be a venue for improving how institutions at all levels understand the value of their investment choices, and doing more to improve each other’s chances of success. Whether on food, energy, technology, data, or other goods and services, some specific elements of the negotiating process can foster climate-smart trade that improves local experience: 
    1. Response measures—if and where genuinely focused on just transition for marginalized communities; 
    2. Food systems innovation and capacity-building—delivering investment to better practices that restore and sustain vital ecosystems, build resilience, and improve livelihoods; 
    3. ACE—the public information and participation element of the UNFCCC process, which can be an engine for local implementation; 
    4. Article 6.8—inviting multidimensional multilateral cooperation to accelerate climate-resilient development at all levels, across sectors. 

Other themes explored in these sessions and for which we are sharing reports, resources, negotiating documents, and other relevant materials, include:

• The still problematic tension between investments in mitigation and adaptation; 
• Far too little funding committed so far to the Loss and Damage Fund; 
• The adaptation finance gap leaving the least developed and most vulnerable countries and communities without urgently needed resources; 
• Already visible and projected unprecedented mass migration due to unremedied climate impacts; 
• The increasing role of municipalities and other subnational institutions for steering national climate crisis response.