IN BONN, FOOTNOTES AND FACTIONS EMERGE AS AFRICA STAKES ITS CLAIM

BY JAMES KAHONGEH  

Negotiations are underway at the Bonn Climate Conference

 Ahhhh! Where do we start? At the beginning? Yes, at the beginning. Grab a seat. This is going to be one helluva rollercoaster ride! I’m seated outside the plenary hall at the World Conference Centre as I type this. Delegates are milling around the lobby, sipping copious amounts of coffee. Across the glass wall and on the small grassy patch, many more delegates are puffing their cigarettes away. Nerves are frayed. And the air smells of urgency.

When the United Nation’s 62nd Subsidiary Body meeting (SB62) finally opened in Bonn on Monday, it came riding a tide of tension and urgency. With a two-day delay on the adoption of the agenda, everything appeared to be on a slippery slope, but what many of those gathered year missed a major point; that this procedural friction was revealing a crucial shift in global climate diplomacy. Spearheaded by the G77+China coalition, delegates and their allies successfully pushed through agenda footnotes making space for climate finance, just transition, and market-related trade measures. For Africa, these “tiny” footnotes were too little too late, but they still hold extraordinary significance. Here’s why:

Agenda battles and why footnotes mattered in the end

Delegates convened on Monday to debate a document that would guide negotiation proceedings for the next two weeks. But disagreement, led by the G77+China, stalled proceedings for nearly 48 hours on what many here argued should have been administrative housekeeping.

The contested agenda items included:

a. A requirement under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement to discuss public finance commitments for developing nations.

b. The inclusion of just transition issues like energy access and clean cooking, alongside the potential discussion of carbon border adjustment mechanisms.

c. A structured, measurable approach to the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).

Though agreed upon on paper, these demands were initially excluded from the draft agenda by richer nations wary of diluting mitigation discussions. But with G77+China leverage, representing roughly two-thirds of the UN membership, they won adoption of footnotes, permitting these issues to be formally addressed during SB62 plenaries and workshops.

Yes, yes, we agree; they look inconspicuous, these footnotes, but they are in fact far-reaching. As an African negotiator later observed: “In UN parlance, footnotes may be in small type, but here they lock in our right to be heard.”

For G77+China this is victory… and strategic unity

The footnote breakthrough reflected unified diplomatic muscle. Soon after the adoption of the agenda on Tuesday evening, the G77+China coalition, representing over 130 developing countries, issued a statement celebrating the compromise:

“We are pleased that the agenda now formally includes consultation on Article 9.1 and Just Transition. These footnotes reflect our shared concern that finance and fairness, core pillars of the Paris Agreement, must be treated with urgency and cannot be postponed.”

By explicitly linking Article 9.1 to financial consultations and embedding trade-related carbon measures into the Just Transition agenda, the footnotes grant developing nations’ negotiators a platform they otherwise lacked. The G77+China bloc noted in their release that these items are vital for equity and trust.

Speaking in plenary, China, expanding on this, accused wealthy nations of using carbon "duties" as thinly veiled trade barriers, stating: “Unilateral climate-related trade measures undermine the legitimate development rights of developing countries.” Similarly, India took aim at the emerging EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, calling it “protectionism under the guise of climate concern.” India also made clear that it will “vigorously pursue this matter at COP30”.

Some delegates in the Global North might have viewed these statements as mere rhetoric, but they reflect a prepared and coordinated strategy within the alliance, simultaneously reinforcing Africa’s own negotiating agenda.

For Africa, this is ‘victory for fair process’

Within this broader coalition, the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) also celebrated the footnote inclusion and reiterated Africa’s urgent need for climate justice: Dr Richard Muyungi, chair of the Africa group, said: “We appreciate that finance, trade and just transition are no longer sidelined. These footnotes are a victory for fair process and for Africa’s right to climate justice” Strategic footnotes, in the eyes of the AGN, are not consolation prizes, but legal hooks that compel the UNFCCC Secretariat, COP Presidency and member states to address these issues. With them, Africa can meaningfully participate in shaping solutions and not just responding to the ideas of others.

Victory? Not yet, as three items remain on Africa’s radar

With the agenda settled, Africa’s attention has turned to substance: footnotes without follow-through achieve little. African negotiators are now deliberately refocusing on three key priorities that stand to determine whether the Bonn talks will actually serve the continent. Our team here has analysed them as follows:

a.      Article 9.1: Not just talk, but money. Now!
This article spells out developed countries’ obligation to provide financial support for developing nations. Africa wants public, grant-based finance (or, simply put, funds that do not need repaying) targeted at adaptation (and therefore making communities resilient). Examples include drought-resistant agriculture, sustainable water systems, and disaster-resilient infrastructure. African negotiators insist that SB62 produce a roadmap on how much finance, how it will be delivered, and which sectors it will cover.

b.      Just transition: Energy access and clean cooking
For many African economies, energy insecurity, let alone a just transition, cannot be abstract or narrowly climate-focused. Africa insists that transitioning away from fossil fuels cannot mean restricting energy access. “Just transition” for the continent means exactly what it says: fairness for frontline communities, not top-down emissions reduction. A crucial element is the transition away from kerosene and charcoal stoves to clean, reliable cooking technologies. African delegates are monitoring workshop themes closely to ensure they cover these essentials, not just market transitions.

c.      GGA: Measuring adaptation with muscle
Adaptation efforts have too often flowed into technical white paper zones or abstract benchmarks. Africa wants robust indicators, like land area covered by climate-resilient crops, number of vulnerable water systems upgraded, or hectares of restored wetlands. These indicators would be based on means of implementation, meaning funding, technology, capacity support, not just declarations of intent. The footnotes allow these debates early space, but Africa is pushing to convert them into concrete targets and monitoring frameworks.

We are keeping a keen eye on what happens next

Over the remaining days of SB62, a few critical questions could determine whether these procedural victories deliver substance. Again, our team of experts here weigh in:

a.      Finance roadmaps: Will Article 9.1 texts lead to specifics? Like dates, amounts, financial instruments? Or simply restate pledges?

b.      Just transition dialogue: Will carbon border adaptation be debated within the context of fairness, or will it be sidelined under economic or trade headers?

c.      Adaptation metrics: Will Africa succeed in embedding measurable, implementation-linked metrics into the GGA?

d.      Trade-climate diplomacy: Will the issue of carbon duties gain clarity, or be pushed off to COP30?

Yes, the journey from footnote to forum to framework is fraught with delays, pressure and competing interests, but SB62 remains Africa’s current operational stage to press its demands before the global spotlight shifts to COP30 in Brazil. Keep it here for more updates.

James Kahongeh is the Media and Communications Lead at Power Shift Africa