From Bonn To Belém, Global Climate Talks Inch Forward Amid Deep Divides

The annual two-week Bonn Climate Change Conference concluded on June 26 with some progress but also exposed the deep divisions between parties at a time when the impacts of global warming are intensifying.

The mid-year meeting, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is meant to address the technical and scientific aspects of climate negotiations and shape the agenda for the upcoming Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC.

The meeting was delayed by nearly two days due to disagreements over the agenda, as developing countries demanded formal discussions on the climate finance obligations of developed countries and the impacts of unilateral trade measures such as the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The familiar divide among parties, particularly around finance and ambition for emissions reduction, continued and affected progress on several other agenda items.

Despite this, Bonn witnessed substantial progress on items such as the Global Goal on Adaptation and the Just Transition Work Programme.

The 2025 meeting was held in the shadow of the last-minute climate finance agreement pushed through by the Azerbaijan presidency at COP29 in Baku last year that left many parties frustrated – a sentiment that carried over to the Bonn conference. On June 24, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) expressed its frustration, saying, “Climate change and its devastating impacts are accelerating, why are we not acting at least at equal pace?” At the close of the session, the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group echoed similar frustration over attacks on science stating, “It is alarming that the reflection of scientific fact is being challenged. That the mere mentioning of 1.5°C seems to be a red flag is an extremely concerning development.” The group noted that current efforts are off track and called for more ambitious mitigation goals.

The mood was summed up during the closing plenary when U.N. Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said, “We have a lot more to do before we meet again in Belém (COP30). There is so much more work to do to keep 1.5 alive, as science demands.”

Progress on just transition and adaptation

The Bonn climate change conference, SB62, saw progress on two key negotiation items: the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) and the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).

For the first time, negotiators produced a draft decision and an informal note on the JTWP, which will be further discussed at COP30 in Belém. The note outlines possible approaches to financing, capacity building, and technology transfer to support developing countries in implementing just transition strategies. It also encourages countries to integrate just transition considerations into their national climate plans, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and long-term low-emissions development strategies (LT-LEDS).

This marks an initial step toward embedding social equity and labour issues within the core planning frameworks of the Paris Agreement, says Jonas Kuehl, a policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), an independent think tank.

The JTWP text connects climate finance to the broader social and economic aspects of just transition. It includes references to human rights, gender equality, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and other vulnerable groups. These references broaden the scope of climate finance and indicate that resources must also support social protection, reskilling, and inclusive planning, not only infrastructure, emission reductions, and adaptation, says Kuehl.

The latest JTWP document also includes language on unilateral trade measures. Developing countries have pushed for discussions on such measures, which they have said are imposed in the name of climate action. They argue that these policies limit their ability to respond effectively to climate change. Developed countries, however, argue that such issues should be addressed in trade forums such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). Experts view the inclusion of trade measures in JTWP as a positive development, but caution that it should not overshadow other critical aspects of just transition.

“There were fears that including trade measures in the JTWP discussion would overtake all other discussions on just transition. Luckily, a draft text was produced with other elements championed by civil society, and this will be negotiated at Belém,” says Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager of the Climate Change Programme at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a non-profit organisation based in New Delhi.

In addition to JTWP, the SB62 meeting also saw progress on adaptation, especially regarding how the means of implementation and finance could be included in the forthcoming list of indicators to assess progress towards achievement of targets. “The current outcome allows the expert group working on the UAE Belém work programme to include indicators that specifically address means of implementation, including the type of adaptation finance and access to it,” says Emilie Beauchamp, Lead for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning for Adaptation to Climate Change at IISD.

Historically, developed countries have been reluctant to track their financial commitments, partly because these pledges often fall short of what is required. “That is why this new step, allowing the inclusion of indicators on finance, is positive. It is not a game changer yet, but it is a step toward greater transparency on climate finance,” adds Beauchamp.

Friction over finance returns

Although COP29 in Baku in 2024 agreed on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance, where parties committed to $300 billion flowing from developed to developing countries by 2035, climate finance remained one of the most contentious issues at SB62.

The tension was visible from the very first day, when developing countries called for formal discussions on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which outlines the obligation of developed countries to provide financial resources. They pushed for it to be included in the agenda of the opening plenary, but developed countries, especially the European Union, strongly opposed the move.

When asked why the issue resurfaced despite the NCQG agreement, Goswami explained that the Baku agreement lacked clarity and targets on public finance under Article 9.1, prompting developing countries to raise the matter again.

“Despite the urgency in meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, one of the key subparagraphs, 9.1, has yet to be implemented, even after ten years since the agreement’s adoption,” said Bolivia, on behalf of the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), in its submission on June 3.

To break the deadlock, the SB62 chair proposed that the issue be discussed in closed-door consultations, with outcomes to be reported in Belém. India has already indicated it will raise the matter again at COP30.

“The compromise was that a series of consultations on Article 9.1 took place. The consultations saw tense exchanges, with no consensus on how to move forward,” said Natalie Jones, Policy Advisor at IISD.

Finance debates at SB62 also included discussions on the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap, which aims to mobilise $1.3 trillion in total climate finance by 2035 from all sources. The roadmap was part of the broader NCQG outcome at COP29.

There were two consultations on the roadmap which were also heated. Developing countries emphasised the need for more adaptation finance and called for financial mechanisms that do not deepen their debt burden. Developed countries, meanwhile, pushed for greater mobilisation of private finance. “How the roadmap will ultimately bridge these perspectives remains to be seen,” said Natalie Jones. “Without credible and strong signals that finance will be scaled up at the pace needed, we are unlikely to see significant breakthroughs at COP30.”

Goswami described the Baku-to-Belém roadmap as just a political product. In the final moments of NCQG negotiations at COP29, a few countries introduced the roadmap to resolve the impasse and move forward. Now, Brazil, as COP30 President, is compelled to carry it forward, she said, adding, “But the roadmap is largely symbolic.”

“NCQG discussions have already gone through multiple rounds of negotiations for a few years preceding COP29. There is resistance to renegotiate it now. So, the roadmap could offer some guidance, but has limited enforceability,” she said.

But one thing is clear: climate finance will continue to shape negotiations ahead. Developing countries are looking for means to implement their climate action that are consistent with global goals but do not lead to debt traps. In its submission, India has noted, “Without sufficient climate finance, even the proposed NDCs would not fructify, let alone any enhanced level of ambition in future NDCs.”

The narrow path to Belém

The mid-year talks in Bonn served as a crucial checkpoint on the road to COP30 in Belém, which will mark 20 years since the Kyoto Protocol entered into force and 10 years since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. It was seen as an opportunity to build momentum towards a meaningful negotiation during COP30. The Brazilian Presidency of COP30 has issued four letters since March 25, underscoring the urgency of the climate crisis, record-breaking global temperatures, and the crossing of key planetary thresholds.

The year 2025 is crucial as countries are expected to submit their updated and more ambitious NDCs, which will reveal how far the world remains from meeting its climate targets. However, with sharp divides among countries and limited remaining carbon space, the Brazilian Presidency faces a difficult task. It will need to bring all parties together in Belém in November and attempt to steer them toward setting a shared, ambitious climate goal.

“Looking ahead to COP30, a key challenge is how to develop a credible response to the fact that NDCs are likely to leave an ambition gap to 1.5°C. It remains unclear how the Presidency will tackle this issue, yet it is one of the most crucial to ensure the integrity of the Paris Agreement,” said Jones.