Beyond Deliberations, Till Delivery

As the 62nd Subsidiary Bodies (SB 62) session of the UNFCCC concluded in Bonn this June, the mood among climate observers was one of cautious frustration. UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell’s call to go “further, faster, and fairer” resonated widely—but the negotiations revealed a dangerous inertia. Instead of laying the foundation for implementation at COP 30 in Belém, the conference exposed a widening chasm between rhetoric and reality. With COP 29 in Baku having mapped out the priorities—climate finance, fossil fuel transition, global stocktake, and adaptation—the Bonn intersessional was meant to translate that vision into actionable mechanisms. But the outcomes suggest that climate diplomacy continues to revolve more around wordsmithing than world-saving.

Climate Finance: Still Stuck at the Starting Line

At the heart of the global climate finance debate is the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), which is set to replace the long-standing but only recently fulfilled USD 100 billion per year pledge made at the 2009 Copenhagen Summit. At COP29, expectations were raised with the proposal of a much higher target—up to USD 1.3 trillion annually by 2035—encompassing contributions from all financial sources, including both public and private funds. However, the only concrete figure discussed was USD 300 billion per year in public finance for developing countries, highlighting a significant gap between ambition and actionable commitments. The recent Bonn Climate Talks failed to bridge this gap, as negotiators were unable to translate these ambitious targets into binding agreements or clear pathways for implementation, leaving the transition from financial promises to real-world climate action uncertain.

Negotiators from the Global South, particularly India, the G77+China, the African Group, and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), demanded a clear, enforceable roadmap. Their ask: binding interim targets, transparency mechanisms, and equitable allocation principles. But developed countries remained reluctant, favouring voluntary commitments and leveraging private capital, rather than fulfilling public finance obligations.

This hesitation violates both the spirit and letter of Article 9.1 of the UNFCCC, which states unequivocally that developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties in both mitigation and adaptation. The continued ambiguity over sources, predictability, and accountability of funds thus amounts to institutional evasion, risking the erosion of trust between the North and South.

Fossil Fuel Phase-out: The Consensus That Can’t Commit

Following the landmark UAE Consensus at COP 28, which called for a global “transition away from fossil fuels,” expectations were high for a concrete action plan. Instead, Bonn saw a diplomatic dance around definitions. Developed countries emphasized coal phase-outs but remained vague on oil and gas, while carbon capture and storage (CCS) was strategically floated as a techno-fix to delay transitions.

The absence of binding targets, differentiated transition timelines, or investment in clean energy alternatives has left developing countries cynical about the credibility and sincerity of fossil fuel phase-down ambitions. Unless Belém mandates a fossil fuel roadmap with clear accountability structures, the energy transition risks being captured by vested interests rather than guided by climate science.

Carbon Markets Under Article 6: Rules Without Rigor

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which enables voluntary cooperation through carbon markets, continues to face legitimacy concerns. At Bonn, discussions under Article 6.2 and 6.4 exposed systemic weaknesses:

• Environmental integrity of traded credits remains questionable.

• Transparency is undermined by fragmented and opaque national registries.

• Double counting is a persistent risk due to lack of harmonized tracking protocols.

The notion of “learning by doing” may sound progressive, but in the current context, it threatens to institutionalize greenwashing and regulatory capture. Without stringent global compliance standards, Article 6 could become a loophole that enables polluters rather than constrains them.

Adaptation and Loss & Damage: Marginalized Yet Again

Despite increasing climate extremes, Bonn offered little on adaptation finance and loss & damage mechanisms. Though the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) framework was marginally advanced, and tools like CPIA-GEM (Climate Policy Impact Assessment - General Equilibrium Model Interface) were introduced to model climate risk, the financial backbone remains missing. Only about 20 per cent of total climate finance currently goes to adaptation. The Loss and Damage Fund, heralded at COP 28, remains undercapitalized and bureaucratically underpowered. Inaction on this front reflects a troubling pattern—global climate governance remains mitigation-centric, sidelining the needs of the most vulnerable communities.

Just Transition and Gender: Lip Service, Not Structural Change

Bonn witnessed vibrant discussions on just transitions, labour equity, gender inclusion, and youth engagement. Yet these were treated as peripheral themes—commendable in language, negligible in leverage. Without embedded finance, institutional frameworks, and mandatory integration into national plans, these social equity elements risk being performative add-ons rather than pillars of climate policy. COP 30 must treat these issues not as fringe topics, but as core to systemic transformation.

Science and the 1.5 degrees Celsius Target: Sleepwalking into Overshoot

Scientific assessments presented at Bonn confirmed what many feared—current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) put us on track for a catastrophic overshoot of the 1.5 degrees Celius limit. Yet Bonn failed to mandate more ambitious and science-aligned NDCs by the 2025 deadline. The credibility of the Paris Agreement hinges on its alignment with science. Belém must institute a peer-reviewed mechanism for evaluating and revising NDCs, rooted in the IPCC’s latest findings. Anything less would make a mockery of global commitments.

Belém Must Be the Turning Point

Bonn SB 62 was not a breakdown—but neither was it a breakthrough. It reflected a worrying pattern of policy paralysis, where symbolism substitutes substance. COP 30 in Belém dubbed the “Implementation COP,” must deliver transformative outcomes, not just tidy communiqués.

What Belém Must Deliver:

• A binding finance roadmap to the USD 1.3 trillion NCQG, with interim public finance targets and robust accountability systems in line with Article 9.1.

• A science-aligned fossil fuel phase-out strategy, including oil and gas, with time-bound targets and clear responsibility frameworks.

• A global carbon market compliance regime that safeguards against double counting and greenwashing.

• Scaled-up, accessible adaptation and loss & damage finance, with disbursement mechanisms that prioritize frontline communities.

• Full integration of just transition, gender, and youth frameworks into NDCs and climate finance plans.

• A mandatory NDC review process, ensuring all national plans are aligned with the 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway by 2025.

As Simon Stiell rightly warned, “The time for political leadership is now.” The question is—will world leaders finally walk the climate talk, or will Belém be remembered as yet another missed moment in humanity’s defining decade?

Dr Sudheer Kumar Shukla is an environmental scientist and sustainability expert. He currently serves as Head of Think Tank at Mobius Foundation and previously worked with NITI Aayog. Suman Kumari serves as a Project Associate at the Mobius Foundation. Views expressed are personal