Bonn (Germany), June 30, 2025: A world riven by global conflicts, trade wars and climate impacts left its mark on the recently concluded mid-year UN climate talks in Bonn. Having started on a difficult note, with developing countries pushed to discuss climate finance obligations and impacts of unilateral trade measures like the EU’s carbon border tax only to face resistance from developed countries, the Bonn talks have fallen prey to familiar fault lines and slow progress on many issues – says an assessment by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) of the outcomes of the talks
A CSE team had attended and reported on the conference. Speaking from Bonn, Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager, Climate Change, CSE said: “We do not see an appetite to uphold multilateralism from developed countries, and Bonn made that clear. The refusal to dive deeper into Article 9.1 and hear out concerns from developing countries about unilateral trade measures symbolises the imbalance of power that persists in this space. While civil society is driving momentum on issues like just transition, all other spaces remain paralysed by inequity and the refusal of the Global North to support, fund and enable climate action in the rest of the world in line with its historical duty.”
A breakthrough in Just Transition Work Programme, but differences persist
Under the UAE Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), developing countries emphasised addressing climate change-related unilateral trade measures, such as trade-restrictive policies like the EU-Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), while developed countries pushed for aligning just transition pathways with 1.5°C goals and reporting them in national climate targets that are submitted to the UNFCCC.
A draft negotiating text emphasising “whole-of-economy approaches to just transitions”, facilitating “universal access to clean, reliable, affordable and sustainable energy for all”, and variable pathways to energy transitions was produced in Bonn with some areas of consensus, including various proposals from civil society. This will be forwarded for negotiation at COP30 in Belem.
Trade measures burden the Global South
Initially proposed by Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) as a standalone agenda item, Unilateral Trade Measures ultimately became discussion items under JTWP and the Response Measures forum. Developing countries highlighted the adverse impacts of such trade-restrictive measures on economies that undermine equity and shift the burden on to the Global South. In the JTWP, Parties stressed the need for international cooperation and support to address these impacts, with China proposing a joint event with the WTO. In the Response Measures track, the G-77 and China pushed to prioritise UTMs in the Katowice Committee’s work but the EU and other developed countries opposed, suggesting the issue be handled in trade-specific forums.
Global Stocktake discussions stuck on purpose
Parties wrapped up informal consultations on the UAE Dialogue on implementing the Global Stocktake (GST) outcomes without reaching consensus. Developed countries pushed for annual synthesis reports to track implementation of the GST, while developing countries argued for a focus on implementing national climate targets (NDCs) and opposed turning the dialogue into a reporting mechanism. They also called for referencing Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement to clarify the dialogue’s purpose and scope.
Adaptation talks stall over how to measure progress
Negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) stalled primarily over how to develop indicators to track progress on the means of implementation (MOI) needed by developing countries to adapt to climate impacts. Under the GGA framework agreed upon at COP28 in Dubai, UAE, indicators have to be developed to measure the progress on various targets. MOI mainly includes finance, apart from technologies and capacity building, for adaptation measures such as early warning systems.
Other contentious issues in the GGA text include language around transformational adaptation, the Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) and Article 9 which refers to financial obligations of developed countries towards developing countries. The negotiations will continue at COP30 in Belem based on the informal note prepared at Bonn.
Once again, climate funding divides
At the Presidency-led consultations on the ‘Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3 trillion’, developing countries stressed equity and the need for public, grant-based finance. The G77 and China called for addressing systemic barriers, including high capital costs and unilateral trade measures, warning against shifting burdens onto the Global South. Civil society groups demanded transparency and grounding of the Roadmap in Article 9 of the Paris Agreement. Developed countries, including the EU, Canada, Japan, and Australia, emphasised enabling environments and the role of private finance. The COP30 Presidency will release a Roadmap document at the Financing for Development conference in Seville.
Sharm el-Sheikh Dialogue circle equity, finance
Sessions under the Sharm el-Sheikh Dialogue discussed building financial systems that support climate action and resilience. Three thematic sessions under the Dialogue addressed issues of capacity building for financial sector development, transition planning for low-emission, climate-resilient development, and ways to support NCQG implementation through Article 2.1(c). Developing countries highlighted the need for recognising different national circumstances and ensuring that rules on transparency and risk do not penalise vulnerable countries. The need for public finance to support adaptation was a consistent demand
No agreement on mitigation purpose or ambition
Parties remain deeply divided on the purpose and ambition of the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP). Developed countries view it as a tool to extract stronger climate commitments from developing nations, while developing countries insist it must respect national priorities and focus more on means of implementation. Some, including the EU, called for aligning MWP activities with findings from the Global Stocktake. Others warned against turning the MWP into a forum for political pressure or backdoor commitments. Negotiations also explored how the MWP could become a 'safe space' for identifying barriers and sharing solutions. A substantial part of the negotiations also focussed on the need and role of a ‘digital platform’ for sharing mitigation actions and serving as a ‘match-making tool’ due to be launched in Belem.
Capacity gaps, transparency concerns on UN carbon markets
Although no formal negotiations took place on UN carbon markets, workshops and dialogues revealed concerns around transparency, safeguards, and capacity gaps. A two day mandated dialogue on Article 6.2 explored early experiences with cooperative approaches, including presentations on opportunities, barriers, benefit sharing, and capacity needs. A one-day capacity-building workshop was held on the Article 6.4 Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism. Discussions on phasing out the Clean Development Mechanism lingered with some parties preferring the earliest phase out and others a delay. As carbon market infrastructure takes shape, concerns remain around transparency, safeguards, and scrutiny many of which were highlighted in special and side-events. Capacity gaps for developing countries came up repeatedly in these forums. Article 6.8 saw quieter progress, with parties discussing how to implement the work programme on non market approaches and integrate non-market approaches into broader development goals of countries.
For more details, interviews etc, please contact Sukanya Nair of The CSE Media Resource Centre at sukanya.nair@cseindia.org, 8816818864
Share this article