Subscribe
The first week of the Bonn climate talks saw climate finance dominate discussions across several negotiating tracks.
The new Climate Finance Work Programme on Article 9 opened amid procedural disagreements over its place on the COP31 agenda.
Talks on Article 2.1(c) and the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap to $1.3 trillion highlighted continuing divisions over obligations, equity and implementation.
Developing countries and civil society groups warned that declining public finance, weak fund replenishment and access barriers could undermine climate action.
The first week of the mid-year climate talks in Bonn, known as SB64, has come to an end, with most key climate finance discussions also concluded. As the second week begins, here is a recap of what was deliberated on climate finance: the key enabler of climate action.
Three sessions of the new Climate Finance Work Programme on Article 9 have now concluded in Bonn. The work programme was established as part of the Mutirão decision in the “political package” released at 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Belém, Brazil last year.
Developing countries wanted the programme to focus specifically on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which obliges developed countries to provide financial resources to developing countries. Developed countries opposed this approach, and the compromise reached in Belém was a work programme covering Article 9 more broadly.
The programme was expected to provide a dedicated space for discussing the implementation of the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance, agreed at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. However, discussions in Bonn began amid strong procedural disagreements. The Group of 77 and China, the largest negotiating bloc in the UNFCCC, representing more than 130 developing countries, expressed deep disappointment that the work programme had not been included in the draft agenda for Paris Agreement negotiations, or CMA8, scheduled to take place alongside COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye.
This is important because, in the UN context, process often determines outcomes. According to the group, the omission raised the risk that the process would become a “talk shop” confined to the mid-year Bonn sessions, without a clear pathway for continuation or political consideration at COP31. Whether the programme ultimately finds a place elsewhere on the November agenda remains to be seen.
Despite these concerns over the programme’s modalities and future status, parties chose to engage in some discussions, while noting that the process itself had not yet been fully settled. Three sessions were held: a party-only dialogue, a multi-stakeholder dialogue and a session for non-party stakeholders, including civil society organisations and observer constituencies.
The discussions reflected a persistent divide over the programme’s purpose. Developing countries and several civil society organisations emphasised that it should focus on developed countries’ obligations under Article 9.1 and serve as the space for discussing implementation of the New Collective Quantified Goal. Developed countries generally supported a broader discussion of climate finance beyond provider-recipient obligations.
Other stakeholders highlighted concerns over declining levels of public finance, barriers to accessing climate funds, and the need for more predictable and adequate support for developing countries.
The first Veredas Dialogue also took place in Bonn. In many ways, it represents a continuation of the now-concluded Sharm el-Sheikh Dialogue on Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement, which concerns making finance flows consistent with low-emission and climate-resilient development.
The Sharm el-Sheikh Dialogue spent years exploring how countries understood Article 2.1(c), ultimately ending in Rome in 2025 without a common interpretation emerging.
The Veredas Dialogue and Xingu Finance Talks were announced at COP30 in Belém as the next phase of this discussion. Co-chaired by South Africa and the Netherlands, the Veredas Dialogue was intended to move beyond conceptual debates and towards lessons on practical implementation of Article 2.1(c). Over two days, participants discussed case studies and problem statements related to increasing climate-aligned finance flows, adaptation finance and barriers in the international financial system.
However, the discussions also highlighted the challenges of translating a broad and contested provision into concrete action. While the dialogue provided a space for exchanging experiences and identifying obstacles, it offered limited clarity on how international cooperation could meaningfully shift financial flows at the scale required.
Civil society participants emphasised that implementation discussions must remain grounded in equity and the obligations of developed countries. They warned against interpretations of Article 2.1(c) that could dilute commitments on climate finance provision to developing countries.
Discussions on the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap to $1.3 trillion also continued in Bonn. The Roadmap emerged from the outcome of COP29 in Baku, where countries agreed on a new climate finance goal under which developed countries committed to providing $300 billion a year to developing countries, alongside an “aspirational target” of at least $1.3 trillion annually by 2035.
The decision was heavily critiqued by the Global South and civil society for being inadequate compared with the climate finance needs of the global majority.
The process is being jointly steered by the COP29 and COP30 Presidencies. Its main outcome so far was the release of a report on the roadmap last year, shortly before COP30 in Belém.
The Bonn discussions brought together representatives from the COP Presidencies, international organisations, development banks, civil society and country groups. Several speakers emphasised the need to move quickly from pledges to implementation.
Amar Bhattacharya of the Independent High-Level Expert Group highlighted the role of concessional finance, multilateral development banks, finance ministries and private capital in mobilising larger flows of climate finance.
Meanwhile, the Climate Policy Initiative presented work on the Climate Finance Reform Compass, a monitoring framework intended to track progress under the Roadmap and related finance measures.
However, questions remained about what exactly the Roadmap is meant to achieve — or can achieve in practical terms. Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, described the Roadmap report as less a detailed plan than a “menu of options” from which different actors could choose.
This framing was broadly echoed across interventions from developing country groupings such as Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean, or AILAC, and Colombia, as well as civil society. The UAE stressed the need not to dilute the focus on developed country obligations in this context.
Emphasis was also placed on the worrying trend of declining climate finance provision across the board, particularly within UNFCCC funds. Speakers referred to the lack of replenishment so far of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund.
The European Union, on the other hand, stressed that implementation would require actors beyond the UNFCCC process, including investors, development banks and national governments. It focused on solutions such as carbon pricing as essential to operationalising the Roadmap.
The strain of the current geopolitical moment loomed large over the climate finance discussions. The absence of the United States was felt less in empty chairs than in shrinking UNFCCC fund contributions. Retreating development aid was referenced across rooms.
The Addis COP is expected to be an adaptation COP, while the road to Antalya is marked by growing attention to the transition away from fossil fuels. But, as always, the means of implementing any transition — finance — remains the central strand connecting all tracks.
Alongside these discussions, work on the Standing Committee on Finance, the Adaptation Fund and adaptation indicators is expected to continue.
