As the world braces for another climate summit in November this year, the Subsidiary Bodies meeting in Bonn, Germany, brought together negotiators, scientists, policymakers, and civil society actors to tackle the complex, behind-the-scenes work that shapes the outcome of the Conference of the Parties (COP) summit.
Held annually in Bonn, this mid-year gathering sets the technical and political groundwork for the ensuing COPs, with the 30th Session of the COP (COP30) scheduled for later this year in Belém, Brazil. Beyond setting the agenda, Bonn could be considered a litmus test to gauge how seriously countries are committed to implementing past pledges and how prepared they are to scale up ambition in the face of a rapidly closing climate window.
Sadly, this year’s Bonn conference was marked by delays, deep disagreements, and mounting frustration, especially over procedural priorities and climate finance. As global temperatures continue to break records, the urgency to act was palpable — as was the resistance to revisiting entrenched political differences.
Delayed start, deep divisions
The conference got off to a slow start as agenda adoption, a procedural step, was stalled by disputes over finance and trade measures. The Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs, including India) demanded the inclusion of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which obligates developed countries to provide climate finance and unilateral trade measures, such as carbon border taxes, on the agenda. India, along with the LMDCs, continues to see carbon border taxes as unfair, undermining principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.
Both these propositions were opposed by developed nations, particularly the European Union, which argued that finance issues were being addressed under other agenda items. Eventually, a compromise was reached to address these issues: not as standalone agenda items but through informal consultations. Disappointed with developed countries’ reluctance to discuss the legal obligations to provide financial support to developing countries, the LMDCs stated their intention to revisit this contentious issue at COP30.
This prolonged deadlock delayed the start of formal negotiations by nearly two days and underscored the persistent divide. While developing nations pushed for historical responsibilities to be acknowledged and operationalised, developed countries advocated forward-looking frameworks and voluntary support mechanisms.
An elusive agreement
One of the most intensely negotiated themes at Bonn was the Global Goal on Adaptation, which aims to reduce vulnerability to climate change, enhance adaptive capacity, and strengthen resilience. There were also discussions on integrating the National Adaptation Plan progress into the Goal, which the G77+China rooted for.
One of the key drawbacks of the Goal thus far has been the lack of metrics. At Bonn, about 490 indicators from a list of nearly 9,000 were shortlisted, with the aim of consolidating them further to about 100. These indicators will be used to track adaptation actions under health, water, agriculture, and infrastructure, among others. India emphasised that adaptation must not be assessed through a uniform lens and backed indicators that are flexible, context-sensitive, and don’t overburden national reporting.
However, differences and tensions arose over whether and how to include indicators on the means of implementation, including finance, capacity, and technology transfer. Many developing countries and regional blocs, such as the African Group and Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), stressed that without finance-related indicators, adaptation efforts will remain an unfunded mandate.
However, countries like Japan and Australia pushed back against including finance-related indicators. Additionally, the African Group and AILAC were opposed to including indicators to track domestic finance allocation and development assistance, while Australia supported their inclusion, emphasising the importance of tracking national adaptation processes.
The process to refine indicators was thus contentious. Countries including Australia warned against micromanaging expert groups tasked with technical work while others demanded clear guidance and tight timelines. Towards the end of the conference, Parties agreed on a globally applicable headline indicator set, which would be complemented by regionally or nationally tailored context-specific sub-indicators. Guidance on indicators to reflect the means of implementation wasn’t agreed on, however.
‘Safe space’ debate
The Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) — created to scale up action to meet the 1.5° C target — also came under scrutiny. While many Parties acknowledged the usefulness of dialogues under the MWP, several questioned its ability to deliver actual emissions reductions.
The debate between Parties was on how a constructive and inclusive environment, a.k.a. safe space, could be provided for the MWP discussions: some advocated a push to ramp up ambitions while others wanted to limit their scope. Developing countries emphasised that many of them have already set ambitious Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targets but lack the financial and technical support to implement them.
The LMDCs, including India, and the African and Arab Groups, warned against the MWP being used to impose new commitments and urged that it remain a facilitative, non-punitive process. The Philippines called for the MWP to facilitate, promote, and enhance international cooperation.
Further, a proposal was made to develop a digital platform to share mitigation tools and experiences. While Brazil, supported by Egypt, argued that this could help connect fragmented initiatives, the Alliance of Small Island States and the EU cautioned about the duplication of existing platforms, which could take attention away from scaling up ambitions.
L&D, just transition, gender
Members of the G-77/China huddle to find a way forward on the Global Goal on Adaptation, June 26, 2025.
| Photo Credit:
IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth
The review of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage (L&D) made some headway, with proposals emerging on integrating L&D into NDCs and streamlining technical assistance. However, funding gaps and questions about how the Santiago Network — a UN initiative linking vulnerable developing nations with technical support to tackle climate impacts, focusing on loss and damage reduction — would operate continued to cloud consensus.
In this session, interventions by observers emphasised the need to consider non-economic L&D, scale up finance, and align L&D efforts with human rights obligations. India and other developing countries called for streamlining access to technical support and adequate and scaled-up funding for responding to climate-induced losses.
In discussions under the Just Transition Work Programme, Parties emphasised that just transition must be anchored in equity, development rights, and national contexts. Social dialogue, labour rights, and meaningful stakeholder engagement, especially that of Indigenous Peoples, were highlighted as foundational to just transition. Parties also flagged the economic impacts of unilateral measures, such as carbon border taxes (tariffs imposed on imported goods based on their carbon footprint) and trade barriers, and the role of critical minerals in energy transition. Parties agreed to address these issues through linked agenda items, and this would remain a bone of contention at COP30.
A new dispute emerged at Bonn in connection with the development of a new Gender Action Plan. There were differences of opinion on terminology (gender diversity and intersectionality). Key areas of focus proposed for the Plan included unpaid care work, sexual and reproductive health, and addressing gender-based violence, signalling the need for a framework that responds to evolving realities. In this context, the roles of gender-disaggregated data, traditional knowledge systems, and gender-responsive budgeting were also discussed.
Climate finance gridlock
Climate finance loomed large across almost every negotiation track. The issues of how much funding is available, where it is going, where it will go, and how predictable it is remained a recurring theme across discussions on adaptation, mitigation, and L&D.
The presidency-led consultation on the ‘Baku to Belem’ roadmap aims to operationalise a target to mobilise $1.3 trillion annually in climate finance. But deep disagreements emerged over the structure of finance — grants v. loans, public v. private, and mitigation v. adaptation — and who should be held responsible for raising the money.
Developing countries pushed for transparent and clear burden-sharing frameworks among developed countries, with the G77 and China calling for tackling systemic barriers to finance. Small Island Developing States, represented by AOSIS, demanded earmarked and fast-disbursing funds tailored to their unique vulnerabilities. The Least Developed Countries sought a tripling of adaptation finance by 2030 compared to 2022 levels and a greater reliance on grants. Several groups, including AILAC, the Environmental Integrity Group, and the Arab Group, also stressed the importance of tracking progress; scaling non-debt instruments; and innovating revenue streams, such as taxes on financial transactions. The EU noted the need for the roadmap to be a transparent platform engaging external stakeholders and building on existing initiatives.
Taken together, these inputs reflect a clear call for an inclusive and accountable roadmap that’s responsive to diverse regional needs.
Meanwhile, concerns emerged over the credibility of ex-ante finance reporting by developed countries on their planned financial contributions, per Article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement. Several developing countries highlighted discrepancies between planned or promised contributions and actual disbursements and called for reforms to improve transparency and accountability.
On the service arrangements of the Adaptation Fund: Parties led by AOSIS requested that the World Bank, currently an Interim Trustee of the Fund, be named the Permanent Trustee of the Adaptation Fund.
With COP30 in Belém just months away, the Bonn Climate Conference was both a teaser and a pressure test. On the positive side, parties made incremental progress on technical workstreams like adaptation indicators, transparency frameworks, and Article 6 (on cooperative mechanisms). But the underlying political tensions around equity and finance remain unresolved. Bonn 2025 reaffirmed that while the science is unequivocal, politics will determine the pace of action.
Indu K. Murthy leads the Climate, Environment and Sustainability sector at the Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP), a research-based think tank.