Stuck in limbo: How the UAE Consensus got lost in translation

At COP28 in Dubai, climate diplomacy had one of its rare feel-good moments. Countries, big and small, rich and poor, walked away declaring victory after agreeing on what became known as the UAE Consensus. At its heart was the conclusion of the first-ever Global Stocktake, the Paris Agreement’s global check-in on how far we’ve come (or not) in cutting emissions, adapting to a warming world, and helping those most at risk. The hope? That this collective climate audit would kick off a fresh wave of green action. The reality? That enthusiasm has since nosedived into a bureaucratic cul-de-sac. What was meant to be a springboard for progress has turned into a diplomatic deadlock stretching from Baku to Bonn. In this breakdown, SAADA MOHAMED SALA, the Climate Finance Lead at Power Shift Africa, takes us through the drama surrounding the so-called UAE Dialogue, the mechanism created to turn the GST’s promises into something more than words. But instead of a bridge to action, the Dialogue has become yet another venue for finger-pointing, procedural bickering, and climate double-speak.

1: From Dubai’s high-fives to hard truths

Let’s rewind to the end of COP28. The UAE Consensus was framed as a turning point, a rare moment of alignment around urgent climate goals. The final text called for a transition away from fossil fuels (diplomatic-speak for “we really should stop digging oil and burning coal”), and also included commitments to triple renewable energy, double global energy efficiency by 2030, and hit net-zero emissions by 2050. It was the first time a COP decision so directly acknowledged the need to wind down fossil fuel use.

To many, it was historic. But it came with fine print: each country would still decide how to act, and the next round of national climate plans, due in 2025, would be the real test. To help countries stay on track, negotiators came up with the UAE Dialogue; a process to keep the conversation going, focus on implementation, and, crucially, avoid losing momentum before the next big climate moment.

2: And then came the Baku bottleneck

Enter COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. You’d think a meeting about how to follow through on agreed goals would be straightforward. Not quite. The moment the UAE Dialogue came up on the agenda, talks hit the skids. Developed countries wanted the Dialogue to cover everything; emissions cuts, climate adaptation, and the financial support to make it all happen. Their idea? Use the Dialogue to assess collective progress, with national climate plans (NDCs) and adaptation plans (NAPs) as the yardsticks.

But for developing countries, that sounded less like collaboration and more like micromanagement. The Global Stocktake, they argued, was already the space for measuring progress. The Dialogue, in contrast, was supposed to support implementation, not turn into a GST sequel with stricter conditions and pressure. Worse still, developing countries saw this move as an infringement on national sovereignty. Climate plans, by design, are meant to be self-determined. Telling countries how to write or revise them? That’s a red line.

Even more contentious was where the UAE Dialogue sat within the COP28 decision. It had been tucked neatly under the finance section. That wasn’t an accident. For many Global South countries, the Dialogue was meant to focus on the one thing that makes or breaks climate action: money. Not lectures, not reports. Finance. Predictable, fair, and actually delivered.

They saw this as a space to dig into the hard questions: Is climate finance flowing where it’s needed? Is it accessible, or tied up in red tape? Is it enough? And why are promises made in past COPs still not translating into functioning solar panels, seawalls, and drought-resilient farming across Africa and the Global South?

To avoid a full-blown walkout in Baku, the COP29 Presidency added a vague footnote to the agenda, a diplomatic “let’s agree to disagree for now.” But even that couldn’t hold things together. Talks went nowhere. A last-minute draft text was rejected, and the whole issue was punted to Bonn 2025, where negotiators hoped cooler heads might prevail.

3: Bonn 2025: déjà vu, but more tense

Now, in the home stretch of the Bonn climate talks, negotiators are right back where they left off. Same disagreements. Same frustration. Different city.

The Global South has held its ground. Their message? You want meaningful action? Then let’s talk about how to fund it. For them, the scope of the UAE Dialogue must be built around the following:

§  Finance is non-negotiable. They want the Dialogue to explicitly tackle how developed countries will deliver on their legal obligations to provide climate finance, as set out in Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. Without this, countries can’t move from plans to action.

§  Expose the obstacles. Many developing countries are ready to act but face serious hurdles in accessing funds, from convoluted application processes to conditions that exclude the most vulnerable. They want this Dialogue to name and fix those barriers.

§  Go beyond pledges. Countries don’t just need vague support; they need technology transfer, local capacity-building, and infrastructure investment tailored to the real needs on the ground, not designed in distant capitals.

§  Level the playing field. Some rich nations are now introducing unilateral trade measures, such as carbon border taxes, that penalise exports from developing countries. These measures hurt economies that are already struggling with climate costs and are seen as a new form of climate-era economic injustice. Developing countries want the Dialogue to call this out and push for fairer cooperation.

4: Two years on, still no landing

It’s now almost two years since the fanfare of COP28. The UAE Consensus is beginning to feel more like a polite illusion than a turning point. The GST outcomes that were meant to inspire a new era of global cooperation have instead led to a deadlock over how (and even whether) to follow through.

With just two days left in Bonn, negotiators are cramming back-to-back meetings, huddling in side rooms, and trying to forge a last-minute agreement. But without a clear resolution, the risk is that COP30 will inherit the same unresolved tensions.

Will the Dialogue finally move from an argument about its scope to a focus on actual support for climate action? Or will this saga become yet another case study in how high-level climate ambition collapses under the weight of political mistrust and procedural brinkmanship?

Stay tuned. And don’t hold your breath.