Bonn climate talks: Rich nations score against their poor counterparts
Delegates from across the world during the opening session of SB60 in Bonn, Germany.
What you need to know:
- At the heart of these talks is climate finance, which traditionally puts developed and developing countries in opposing camps.
- These discussions have been packed with tension, with some negotiators feeling that the New Collective Quantified Goal on finance is being reopened.
In Bonn, Germany
When the Bonn climate talks began on Monday last week, a showdown was inevitable. After the frustrations of last year’s COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, countries came prepared to battle; and it didn’t take long before negotiators went for each other’s jugular.
First, the introduction by Bolivia of two agenda items caused the delay of the proceedings.
In its proposal, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, the Latin American country wanted countries to implement Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement.
The article states that developed countries shall provide financial resources to assist developing countries, and adoption of this agenda would have compelled wealthy nations to support their poor counterparts with climate finance.
After two days of wrangling, none of these issues were captured in the agenda. With that, developed countries drew first blood.
At the heart of these talks is climate finance, which traditionally puts developed and developing countries in opposing camps. These discussions have been packed with tension, with some negotiators feeling that the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on finance is being reopened.
‘‘We are back to unravelling the NCQG. Things don’t look good,’’ one expert told Nation.
Throughout the week, developed countries have pushed to elevate the concept of private financing of climate action, insisting that ‘‘we have to do things differently.’’
After one week of negotiations, discussions about honouring past commitments have been ‘‘unwelcome’’ according to Ms Fatuma Hussein, a negotiator on just transitions from Kenya.
On Friday morning, Brazil, the host of COP 30 in November, called on countries to fulfilexisting climate pledges before making new ones. Brazilian diplomats are promising to facilitate a summit where ‘‘hundreds of past climate pledges’’ are met first.
In the letter, Brazil’s COP30 President André Aranha Corrêa do Lago reminded countries of the need to honour what has already been agreed. And rightly so as the past 10 years have had no shortage of ‘‘engagements, initiatives, and innovations’’ from both public and private sectors.
‘‘Despite these outstanding breakthroughs and progress, we are still off track to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement,’’ Aranha wrote.
To correct this course, Aranha says the world ‘‘must exponentially scale and speed up efforts’’ to meet the commitments made in the past.
He adds: ‘‘The incoming Presidency is working to ensure that the action agenda contributes to putting into practice what we have collectively agreed so far.’’
But why is Brazil adamant about not taking the risk of fresh promises? ‘‘We are not against new initiatives,” said a top Brazilian diplomat, adding that they are focused ‘‘on what has already been drawn up.’’
Two months ago, the South Americans warned about additional items that may complicate a process already steeped in drawbacks, including fresh conflict, the US’s withdrawal from climate commitments and waning political momentum for climate action.
The mid-year climate talks in Bonn influence the outcomes of the COP and Brazilians appear to be leaving nothing to chance. The ‘‘30 key objectives’’ identified by Brazil say it all.
For them, transitions in transport, energy and industry are important as is the transformation of food and agriculture and resilience for cities, infrastructure and water.
Finance is at the centre of contentions in the talks in Bonn and, inevitably, in Brazil at COP30.
‘‘Brazil will accommodate all discussions on the table. But the biggest battle will be on finance,’’ says Ms Hussein.
But with the US out of climate negotiations after withdrawing from the Paris Agreement earlier this year, the enthusiasm for climate finance has taken a hit, with multilateral development banks also shy to make commitments.
Work on the Global Goal on Adaptation has been ongoing this week, with the first draft text released late Thursday night. The draft text emphasises the Means of Implementation (MoI) under articles 9 (finance), 10 (technology transfer) and 11 (capacity building) of the Paris Agreement.
‘‘There’s still no agreed position on whether the indicators should track all sources of the means of implementation, including domestic sources and ODA development assistance (ODA). The ODA is not climate finance and any indicators relating to it should be expunged from the current list of indicators,’’ says Ignatius Juma, a climate adaptation and resilience expert.
Less upbeat
This appears to be the collective position of Africans, with the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) opposed to the inclusion of these resources tracking domestic budget allocations and official development assistance.
Without mitigation on the table, developed countries are less upbeat about the talks. To them, cutting emissions has been the ‘‘whole point’’ of climate negotiations. For developing countries, responsible for only four per cent of the total global emissions, the discussion is not a main priority.
The climate talks have also evolved enormously over the years to include other justice issues around critical minerals, indigenous people and workers as captured in the just transition negotiations, a highlight of the ongoing talks.
It is not difficult to understand why just transition is a hot topic. Firstly, the conversation backfired in Baku last year, with countries disagreeing on how to take the work forward.
While it was seen as a mishit, the lack of outcome on the Just Transition Work Programme was celebrated by some experts, saying famously at the time that ‘‘no outcome is better than a bad outcome.’’
Meanwhile, others saw the lack of concrete outcomes as the beginning of the collapse of the just transition negotiations.
Not here in Bonn, where the debate has gained immense traction, with social justice movements calling for a global mechanism to provide safeguards to community-led transitions.
This discussion is centred around support for communities who will bear, or have already borne, socioeconomic impacts as the world transitions away from fossil fuels.
In Mpumalanga province in South Africa, for instance, approximately 400,000 jobs, including 80,000 in coal mining, are at risk of loss, as findings of a 2023 government report show.
While $12.8 billion was pledged to support South Africa’s transition away from the coal regime, only $1.9 billion has been received. Even so, $1.2 billion has been in the form of loans.
The main contention in the discussion, however, is the lack of funding specific to just transition as observed by Chadli Sadorra, a climate justice campaigner with the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice
According to Sadorra, there needs to be a clear mandate on how to finance the just transition.
‘‘Currently, only mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage have finance targeted to them. The lack of definition on finance for just transition affects the upskilling and reskilling of workers, for instance, which are necessary,’’ he said.
According to the campaigner, countries attending the talks in Bonn ‘‘must start to define’’ what constitutes finance for just transition.
An agenda on “promoting international cooperation and addressing the concerns with climate change-related trade-restrictive unilateral measures” was also struck out. Also proposed by Bolivia, a developing country, it appeared to target the EU’s tax on the carbon emissions of certain imported products.
But this wasn’t the first time this was being pushed into the agenda of the climate
multilateral process. At COPs 28 and 29 in Dubai and Azerbaijan, respectively, the agenda failed to sail through after developed countries blocked it.
In Bonn, the same fate awaited the agenda where negotiators from rich countries extinguished it. But not without a standoff that delayed the opening of the climate talks for nearly 30 hours.
