Transport Groups Target COP32 Guidance as Adaptation Plans Overlook Transit
COP 31 Global Climate Action • United NationsNovember 12, 2026
Locunity is an independent informational service and is not an official government page for this commission. All information is sourced from public footage and an analysis of official agendas with the aid of responsible, fact-checked AI. to report an error or omission.
Countries are writing climate adaptation plans that largely leave out buses, trains and ferries, and the money reflects it. At a COP31 Global Climate Action session on Nov. 12, 2026, international transit and rail groups said they will spend 12 months drafting guidance meant to get transport into those plans by COP32. Istanbul's acting mayor and a Sonoma County supervisor showed what that work looks like on the ground: transit treated as disaster infrastructure, and funded by any means available.
- Only one-third of 89 national adaptation plans include public transport interventions, a UITP review found.
- Transport adaptation finance is about $1.8B, compared with $545B for mitigation.
- Two Plans to Accelerate Solutions will jointly draft transport adaptation guidance by COP32.
- Sonoma County used an $82M refinery settlement to help fund zero-emission buses.
- Istanbul unveiled a disaster-resilient mobility roadmap covering earthquakes, floods and tsunamis.
Transit's Missing Seat in Adaptation Plans
The basics: National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) are country-level strategies, filed under the U.N. climate process (UNFCCC), for coping with climate impacts that are already arriving. Plans to Accelerate Solutions are sector-specific action efforts within the COP's Global Climate Action agenda.
Why it matters: Transport resilience is chronically underfunded. Panelists put adaptation finance for transport at about $1.8B, compared with $545B for mitigation. Transit and rail groups argue the gap starts with what countries choose to write into their plans.
Where things stand: The International Association of Public Transport (UITP) reviewed 89 NAPs. Only one-third include public transport interventions, and none include financing or performance metrics.
"Public transport is largely missing from national adaptation plans despite its critical role when it comes to city resilience," said Philip Turner, head of sustainable development at UITP.
The International Union of Railways (UIC), represented by Lucy Anderton, reported a similar pattern. Of 44 NAPs from countries where rail is significant, 39 discuss transport, but only 23 reference rail.
A model from Brazil: Tiago Olante Casagrande, senior environmental engineer at Brazil's Ministry of Transport, described a NAP process built on climate risk analysis and sector-specific goals. Brazil sets aside 1% of public-private partnership (PPP) contract budgets for resilience and tracks progress on a public platform. Those are the financing and measurement features UITP found missing in every plan it reviewed.
The announcement: Sabina Carluccio, executive director of the International Coalition for Sustainable Infrastructure (ICSI), announced what she called the first collaboration across Plans to Accelerate Solutions. The two transport-focused plans will work together over 12 months on NAP guidance for transport. The process will include consultation and a convening, possibly at the International Transport Forum summit, with the goal of launching guidelines by COP32. UIC's Transport System Resilience Task Force will implement the effort.
UITP also reported progress on capacity. It has trained 3,000 professionals, and its TRUE initiative supports more than 20 cities. Separately, panelists highlighted the MOVE Credits Coalition, which focuses on using carbon markets to finance rail and public transport.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: No vote was taken because the session was informational. Organizers framed the guidance as a way to make transport visible in adaptation plans and to unlock finance. Transit agencies and rail operators stand to benefit most if national plans start naming projects, budgets and metrics. Ministries drafting NAPs would get a template. Cities could gain access to adaptation money that now flows mostly elsewhere.
What's next: The 12-month collaboration begins now, with guidelines targeted for COP32. Watch for the consultation process and a possible convening at the International Transport Forum summit.
Sonoma County Makes the Polluter-Pays Case
Why it matters: Plans fail without predictable funding and skilled staff. Sonoma County's active transportation plan needs $608M that the county does not have.
Where things stand: Linda Hopkins, Sonoma County Supervisor, said transportation produced about 60% of the county's emissions in 2018. She argued that buses function as disaster response infrastructure, not just commuter service. That argument resonates in a county that has repeatedly faced emergencies.
Supervisor Hopkins described an $82M refinery settlement that helped pay for zero-emission buses, a working example of polluters funding clean transit. The county is also exploring developer fees and density bonuses as revenue tools. Density bonuses let builders add units beyond zoning limits in exchange for public benefits.
The other side: One-time settlements are not a funding stream. Panelists repeatedly called for steady funding, and Sonoma's $608M gap shows the distance between adopted plans and paid-for projects.
Brazil's parallel: Casagrande pointed to Brazil's public tracking platform and to Fundo Clima, the national climate fund, which has financed electric buses.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: No action was taken. Riders and residents in disaster-prone areas gain if transit is funded as emergency infrastructure. Polluting industries and developers face potential new costs under fee and settlement models. Local governments carry the implementation burden and still need reliable revenue to sustain the work.
What's next: Sonoma County is still exploring developer fees and density bonuses. No timeline was given.
Istanbul Builds Transit for Earthquakes and Floods
Why it matters: Istanbul carries about 16 million public transport journeys a day. That makes its approach a test case for how megacities can plan for both emissions and disasters.
Where things stand: Nuri Aslan, Acting Mayor of Istanbul, described a 402.6-kilometer rail network, 11 new maritime routes, more than 600 kilometers of bike lanes and 2,400 shared e-bikes.
The European Union-funded Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan Phase Two produced 11 pilot proposals, including low emission zones, bus priority lanes and pedestrian streets. It also produced a Disaster Resilient Urban Mobility Roadmap covering earthquake, flood and tsunami scenarios.
The city has already tested that thinking in practice. During heavy rain in October, Istanbul extended metro, tram and funicular operating hours to keep residents moving.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: This was a keynote, not a decision. The roadmap positions transit operators as first responders in an emergency. The pilot proposals, if pursued, would reshape street space in favor of buses and pedestrians.
Looking Ahead
The transport adaptation guidelines are due by COP32. Advocates, transit agencies and local officials who want transport written into national plans should watch for the upcoming consultation, which may run through the International Transport Forum summit.