Subscribe
The mid-year UN climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany concluded with limited progress, as long-standing divisions between developed and developing countries once again took centre stage. Amid escalating global conflicts, intensifying trade tensions and the mounting impacts of climate change, the talks were marked by familiar deadlocks. The outcomes revealed a troubling erosion of multilateral cooperation, particularly by developed nations, according to Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).
A CSE team attended and observed the talks. Speaking from Bonn, Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager, Climate Change, CSE, noted, “We do not see an appetite to uphold multilateralism from developed countries, and Bonn made that clear. The refusal to dive deeper into Article 9.1 and hear out concerns from developing countries about unilateral trade measures symbolises the imbalance of power that persists in this space. While civil society is driving momentum on issues like just transition, all other spaces remain paralysed by inequity and the refusal of the Global North to support, fund and enable climate action in the rest of the world in line with its historical duty.”
There was modest progress under the UAE Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), where a draft negotiating text was produced. It emphasised “whole-of-economy approaches to just transitions”, and called for facilitating “universal access to clean, reliable, affordable and sustainable energy for all”.
It also recognised the need for varied pathways to energy transitions. Some consensus was reached, including proposals from civil society. The draft will be forwarded for negotiation at the 30th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30) in Belém, Brazil.
During the negotiations, developing countries emphasised addressing climate change-related unilateral trade measures, such as trade-restrictive policies like the EU-Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, while developed countries pushed for aligning just transition pathways with 1.5°C goals and reporting them in national climate targets that are submitted to the UNFCCC.
Unilateral trade measures were originally proposed by LMDCs as a standalone agenda item, but were ultimately discussed within the JTWP and the Response Measures forum. Developing countries highlighted the burden such measures place on Southern economies, arguing that they undermine equity and transfer responsibility to the Global South.
China proposed a joint dialogue with the World Trade Organization to address these concerns. The G77 and China pushed to prioritise unilateral trade measures within the work of the Katowice Committee, but developed countries, including the EU, resisted, maintained that these issues belong in trade-specific forums.
Discussions on implementing the Global Stocktake (GST) outcomes, designed to assess collective progress under the Paris Agreement, also failed to reach consensus. While developed countries advocated for annual synthesis reports to monitor implementation of GST, developing countries insisted on focusing efforts on implementing national climate targets and stressed that the dialogue should not become another reporting obligation. They also pushed for explicitly referencing Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement to frame the dialogue’s scope and purpose.
Adaptation negotiations fared no better. Talks under the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) stalled over how to develop indicators for tracking progress, particularly on the means of implementation required by developing countries. These include finance, technologies and capacity building to address climate impacts through measures such as early warning systems. Disputes also arose over the language of “transformational adaptation”, the role of Biennial Transparency Reports and references to Article 9, all of which remain unresolved, except for an informal note that will be the basis of further talks at Belem.
Climate finance remained one of the most contentious issues. During consultations on the ‘Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3 trillion’, developing countries reiterated demands for public, grant-based finance and called for addressing systemic barriers such as high capital costs and discriminatory trade measures. Civil society groups called for transparency and alignment with Article 9, while developed countries, including the European Union, Canada, Japan and Australia, focused on creating enabling environments and attracting private investment. The final Roadmap document is expected to be released at the ongoing fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in Seville, Spain.
Meanwhile, sessions under the Sharm el-Sheikh Dialogue explored how to build financial systems that support climate action and resilience. Thematic discussions addressed capacity building for financial sector development, transition planning, and ways to implement the New Collective Quantified Goal using Article 2.1(c).
Developing countries stressed the need to account for national circumstances and warned that stringent financial rules on transparency and risk should not penalise vulnerable nations. Across the sessions, the call for increased public finance to support adaptation remained consistent.
Negotiations on the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) also made little headway. Developed countries saw MWP as a tool to extract stronger climate commitments from developing nations, while developing countries insisted it must respect national priorities and provide support for implementation.
Some, including the EU, called for aligning MWP activities with the GST findings, while others warned against turning the MWP into a platform for political pressure. There were also discussions around a digital platform for sharing mitigation actions, which could serve as a match-making tool for support and is expected to be launched at COP30.
Although formal negotiations on carbon markets were not held, workshops revealed ongoing concerns around transparency, safeguards and capacity limitations in developing countries. Under Article 6.2, parties shared early experiences with cooperative approaches, highlighting both opportunities and challenges.
A separate workshop focused on the Article 6.4 crediting mechanism of the Paris Agreement, while discussions continued around the timing for phasing out the Clean Development Mechanism. Views remain divided, with some favouring an early exit and others advocating a delay. Quiet progress was also made under Article 6.8, where parties explored ways to integrate non-market approaches with broader development goals.
With many issues left unresolved, the responsibility now shifts to COP30 in Brazil. But for observers and negotiators alike, the Bonn conference reinforced a growing concern: That in an increasingly divided world, climate cooperation is at risk of being buried under geopolitics and inequality.
