Climate negotiations, within reach

Political positions.
Technical recommendations.
A bridge between them.

The Negotiations MCP is being built to make climate negotiations more accessible: helping youth delegates and civil society understand the evidence, navigate the process and turn their priorities into practical recommendations across negotiation tracks.

Join the open beta Explore the pathway

Public evidence access is live. The workflow for reviewed technical recommendations is under development.

A GYC AI Labs initiative for more accessible climate negotiations.

You bringPolitical intent

What should change, who it should benefit and which principles must hold.

The bridgeEvidence + process

Find the source, check its status and identify where a proposal could be taken forward.

The intended outputReviewable options

Specific mechanisms, possible wording, alternatives and questions for human review.

Live: cited public evidenceCoverage: six pilot tracksLens: intergenerational equityIn development: reviewed recommendations

The connection, explained

Your AI assistant,
connected to negotiation evidence.

MCP stands for Model Context Protocol. It is a standard way for an AI application to connect to external information and tools.

The Negotiations MCP gives a compatible assistant access to a curated climate-negotiation evidence service. You ask a question in your assistant; it can search the service and read the cited source versions.

Read the official MCP introduction ↗

Why accessibility matters

Understand the language.
The goal is to explain terms, institutions and documents in language people can use, while keeping the original sources within reach.
Find your way through the process.
Connect an issue to its track, responsible body and possible next step. Make uncertainty and missing evidence visible.
Participate with substance.
Help delegates with limited time and research capacity develop specific proposals and assess the choices behind them.
Carry an objective across tracks.
Explore how one priority could connect to participation, adaptation, technology, finance, transparency or a just transition.

The workflow we are building

Keep the political purpose.
Make the proposal specific.

People define the objective. Evidence informs the options. Review tests whether those options preserve the intent and fit the process.

Confirm intent

State the change you want.

Clarify the objective, affected communities, constraints and questions. The person bringing the position confirms the interpretation.

Ground the case

Find evidence and routes.

Read decisions, reports and submissions. Distinguish agreed mandates from proposals, and verify the relevant receiving process.

Develop alternatives

Translate intent into mechanisms.

Compare possible actions, responsible actors and draft wording. Trace each option back to the objective and its supporting evidence.

Review before use

Test the recommendation.

The owner checks political intent. Independent domain reviewers check support and procedural fit. Unresolved points stay visible.

One position, several entry points

What could translation look like?

Choose an illustration. These examples explain the intended method; they do not establish an existing mandate or an agreed negotiating route.

Illustrative political position

“Young people should shape the adaptation decisions that affect their future.”

Preserve meaningful participation and intergenerational equity while identifying practical ways to put them into effect.

Possible technical directions · subject to review

ACE: explore accessible information, preparation and feedback arrangements for youth participation.
Adaptation: consider defined participation points in planning and review, with a clear response to youth input.
Finance: investigate whether an eligible support route could address participation costs; verify the fund mandate first.

The review question: Which body could act, under what authority, and how would young people know their input influenced the result?

Editorial illustration. No model is running here. These are hypothetical directions, not source-validated recommendations. Each would need exact evidence, procedural checks, alternatives and independent review before use.

The intended deliverable

A briefing you can question,
check and improve.

The aim is to turn an objective into a reviewable set of choices. A useful technical recommendation should make each of these elements clear.

The political objective: The change sought, the people affected and the principles or constraints that an option must preserve.
A specific action: A proposed mechanism or possible wording, with the intended actor and expected result made explicit.
A procedural route: The relevant body, track and receiving process, with evidence of authority and any timing that can be verified.
Evidence you can inspect: Exact source versions and passages, their status, and an explanation of what they support or leave uncertain.
Alternatives and trade-offs: Other ways to pursue the objective, their practical implications and reasons an option might conflict with a constraint.
A visible review record: Whether the owner confirmed the intent, what independent domain reviewers checked and which issues remain unresolved.

This is the target briefing structure. The complete reviewed recommendation workflow is not yet released.

Across the pilot tracks

A shared priority can touch
more than one negotiation.

Adaptation

Resilience, planning and adaptation processes.

Technology

Technology development, transfer and implementation.

Climate empowerment

ACE: education, training, awareness, participation, information and cooperation.

Just Transition

Fairness and inclusion in the transition.

Transparency

Reporting, review and understanding implementation.

Finance

Financial support, institutions and funding processes.

Intergenerational equity runs across the work. Consider whose future is affected, whose knowledge is heard and how benefits and burdens are shared over time.

These are the six pilot tracks, not the whole climate-negotiation agenda. A thematic connection still needs evidence of procedural fit.

An honest view of progress · 17 October 2026

A working evidence foundation.
A recommendation workflow in development.

Available today

Find and inspect public evidence.

Search the bounded corpus and read immutable source versions with page and extraction-block references.
See document status and coverage limits across the six tracks.
Register for time-limited reader access and connect a compatible remote MCP client.
Use separately scoped contribution and review tools where access has been granted.

Being developed and validated

Move from positions to reviewed options.

Confirm a political brief and map evidence-backed routes across tracks.
Produce and compare technical mechanisms and possible wording.
Complete owner and independent domain review before calling an option a supported recommendation.
Evaluate usefulness with delegates and improve through separately consented feedback.

Live inspection: 92 document views across 59 distinct PDF URLs. Several views reuse the same PDF. All tracks have incomplete coverage; inventory size does not establish completeness or answer quality.

What should I know about the current evidence service?

Keyword retrieval returned cited evidence in this review. Meaning-based and combined search are currently unavailable on the live connection: adding a public document left the search index bound to an older corpus version. A repair passed checks in an isolated copy and has not been applied live. Fetch dates describe recorded source versions; they do not promise continuous monitoring. A missing result does not prove no development occurred.

How are facts, proposals and recommendations kept distinct?

A Party submission expresses an attributed position. A report describes what its author reports. A draft remains a draft, and a presidency priority is not Party agreement. Citations let you inspect evidence; they do not by themselves prove an interpretation is correct. Proposed technical wording needs human review, including checks of actor, mandate, timing and adoption status.

Can I share confidential delegation priorities?

The current service is for public evidence. Private delegation intake is unsupported and collective training is disabled. Use public questions and examples. Confidential brief handling requires a separately authorized workflow with appropriate access, processing and retention controls.

Does the MCP decide or negotiate for people?

People retain responsibility for political choices, representation, review and use. The intended output is a briefing with options, evidence, trade-offs and unresolved questions. It does not confer a negotiating mandate or establish institutional endorsement.

What needs to improve next

Prove the pathway
with the people using it.

Restore reliable search. Apply and verify the prepared repair, then ensure future public-source additions preserve the search index safely.
Complete one reviewed cross-track case. Take a confirmed public position through evidence, procedural checks, alternatives and independent review.
Measure usefulness independently. Check relevance, unsupported claims, repair effort and time to a usable brief against a baseline.
Test accessibility in practice. Work with delegates on connection setup, understandable language, assistive technology, mobile use and multilingual needs.

These are development priorities, not completed capabilities or a promised release schedule.

Join the open beta

Bring your questions.
Help shape the bridge.

For youth delegates, civil society and people working to make climate negotiations more accessible. Start with public evidence and help us understand what makes it useful in practice.

Explore cited public documents across six pilot tracks.
Read the source passages behind a response.
Connect from an application that supports remote MCP.

A first question to try

Find public ACE evidence on meaningful youth participation. Show the document dates, status and exact source references. Explain what the sources support and what remains uncertain.