New Delhi, June 22, 2026: The recently concluded climate talks in Bonn, Germany happened at a time when the world has been in a state of turmoil. Against a backdrop of multiple global wars, receding development aid, and trade conflicts, the talks have been tenuous, with key negotiations on adaptation collapsing into Rule 16, the Mitigation Work Programme ending without agreement on its future, and talks on trade, finance and science steered away from the political questions that actually matter: who pays, who is responsible, and who decides.
As the Paris Agreement moves from rule-making to implementation, multilateral climate negotiations are running into the hard politics of translating commitments into reality, as they try to balance the imperatives of equity and urgency. Developed countries have responded by skirting around questions of equity, historical responsibility and finance, retreating into technical processes and replacing material obligations with moral appeals to climate science and the 1.5°C target -- even as fossil fuel use, militarisation, and energy-hungry AI infrastructure continue to expand at home.
But depoliticising the talks will not make the Global South’s demands disappear. “Developing countries arrived in Bonn united in demanding delivery on existing commitments, including the pledge to triple adaptation finance agreed in Belém just months ago. They have now left having encountered little more than procedural stalling,” said Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager, Climate Change and Green Economy at the New Delhi-based think tank, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).
The result is a conference that has once again kicked the hardest decisions down the road to COP31 in Antalya, Turkiye.
Just transition
The negotiations under the UAE Just Transition Work Programme in Bonn centered around a few key pillars: implementation and terms of review of the work programme, and operationalisation of the just transition mechanism. Under the implementation pillar, critical aspects such as the right to development, and challenges and opportunities associated with trade-related measures were noted. “The discussions on the scope and functions of the just transition mechanism evolved and showed progress,” said Rudrath Avinashi, Programme Officer, Climate Change and Green Economy, CSE. “It was consistently viewed by the developing countries as a tool that would enhance the means of implementation, including finance, technology transfer and capacity building; however, developed countries wanted to limit its scope to a knowledge-sharing platform.”
The co-chairs shared the conclusions of the negotiations which would now become the base for discussions at COP31 in Turkiye, to be held later this year.
Trade and climate
The first UNFCCC Dialogue on Trade and Climate saw developing countries voice growing concerns over the proliferation of climate-related trade measures and their implications for development, industrialisation, and the fight against climate change. Highlighting measures such as carbon border adjustment mechanisms, deforestation regulations and complex reporting requirements, developing-country blocs argued that they cannot be expected to shoulder the costs of the transition while developed countries continue to fall short on commitments relating to finance, technology transfer and capacity building. Developed countries, led by the EU, continued to defend these measures, framing them as tools to support decarbonisation and stressing that the purpose of the dialogue was to explore how trade can serve as an enabler of climate action.
Parties also debated the future of the dialogue itself, with many developing countries calling for a more structured process and formal documentation of the talks in Bonn to ensure that the concerns raised inform future sessions and the 2028 planned high-level event.
“The trade and climate dialogues must have concrete discussions assessing how trade measures impact development, and how the Global South can participate meaningfully in low-carbon value chains rather than be locked into extractive roles as raw material suppliers,” says Goswami.
Transition away from fossil fuels
Discussions on the roadmap for Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels (TAFF), instituted at COP 30 in Belem as a parallel process outside the UNFCCC negotiations, exposed a familiar fault line: developing countries pushed for the roadmap to be anchored in equity and CBDR-RC, while developed countries largely focused on the need to focus on ‘best available science’ and ambition in country roadmaps to phaseout fossil fuels. AOSIS rejected the dressing up of debt instruments as climate finance, while Uganda stressed the need for technology transfer rather than leaving developing countries as raw material suppliers for the new energy system.
“The process initiated by Brazil shows promise, with focus on national country circumstances and structural barriers to the transition for the Global South. But any framework that is produced, must be applied by the developed world first to produce national transition roadmaps with concrete near-term actions,” said Goswami.
“For the Global South, an equitable transition must account for energy access, upholding low carbon pathways to development, and meeting countries’ aspirations for green industrialisation and structural transformation,” she added.
Global Goal on Adaptation
Negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation ended in deadlock, with countries ultimately unable to bridge deep differences over adaptation finance, means of implementation, and the governance of future adaptation work. Throughout the discussions, developing countries pushed for the operationalisation of the GGA to remain linked to finance, technology transfer and capacity-building commitments, while several developed countries sought to narrow the focus to technical work on indicators and methodologies. A last-minute compromise text proposed by the Chairs failed to secure consensus, and the agenda item was eventually deferred under Rule 16 of the UNFCCC rules of procedure, pushing negotiations to the next session.
“The GGA discussions have led to a disappointing outcome. The discussion has gravitated more and more towards questions over methodologies, metadata, and expert processes, rather than on public investment, institutional capacity, and support for vulnerable countries. While technical work is important, adaptation is critically dependent upon the means of implementation,” said Trishant Dev, Deputy Programme Manager, Climate Change and Green Economy, CSE.
“Discussions on adaptation finance must move beyond diplomatic applause for commitments to ‘triple’ finance. Developing countries cannot adapt on the basis of ‘welcomed’ commitments alone,” Dev added.
Climate finance
Climate finance remained a contentious issue at SB64, with developing countries expressing deep concern over the lack of progress on the Climate Finance Work Programme (CFWP), the key process intended to advance implementation of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement which obligates developed countries to provide financial resources to developing countries. “Despite expectations for meaningful outcomes, the Climate Finance Work Programme has yet to secure a clear pathway to substantive discussions or accountability at COP31, raising concerns that the process risks becoming a series of procedural exchanges or a ‘talk shop’ rather than a mechanism for delivering finance commitments”, said Sehr Raheja, Deputy Programme Manager, Climate Change and Green Economy, CSE.
Discussions on the roadmap to mobilise US $1.3 trillion in climate finance also highlighted persistent uncertainty over how commitments will be operationalised, monitored and anchored within the UNFCCC process.
To add to this, the first Veredas Dialogue, which succeeded the Sharm el-Sheikh Dialogue (2023-2025), saw the participants discuss country-driven implementation under Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement on aligning global finance flows with climate goals. Delegates shared case studies on increasing national finance flows toward climate, scaling adaptation finance, and the international barriers burdening developing countries.
“While the Veredas Dialogue discussions were constructive, civil society emphasised that implementation must not be a substitute for developed countries' obligations under Article 9. The Dialogue sets the stage for the upcoming Xingu Finance Talks, which will take place alongside the World Bank-IMF Annual meetings later this year in Bangkok,” pointed out Upamanyu Das, Programme Officer, Climate Change and Green Economy, CSE.
Finance concerns also featured prominently across other negotiation tracks, including the Just Transition Work Programme, where developing countries continued to call for stronger means of implementation and concessional finance, and the Global Goal on Adaptation, where language on tripling adaptation finance remains weak on accountability and delivery. These discussions took place against a challenging global backdrop marked by declining official development assistance, cuts to climate finance budgets in several developed countries, and growing financial pressures on multilateral climate funds, underscoring the widening gap between climate finance needs and available support.
Mitigation Work Programme
As the tenure of the Mitigation Work Programme ends this year, negotiations on the future of the platform ended without agreement on its direction. Parties remained divided over whether the programme should focus on raising mitigation ambition or addressing the implementation barriers faced by developing countries. They failed to agree on its future mandate, scope and modalities, and instead handed the issue to the incoming COP31 Presidency for further consultations. The outcome is disappointing because the MWP remains the only dedicated space under the UNFCCC for discussing mitigation implementation. “The Mitigation Work Programme has forever remained deadlocked between developing countries’ demands to address the financial, technological and capacity constraints that continue to hinder climate action, and developed countries’ push to focus on diagnosing the ambition gap,” says Dev.
For interviews and more inputs, please contact Souparno Banerjee at souparno@cseindia.org, 9910864339
Share this article