SB 60 versus SB 62: Lessons from the past and pitfalls to avoid

The annual Bonn climate talks shape the agenda of the Conference of Parties (COP) later in the year. Whether the COP succeeds or fails largely hinges on the outcomes of the meeting of Subsidiary Bodies, known as the SBs. 

It is for this reason that SB 60 in Bonn in 2024 was described by climate experts as a monumental failure, notably due to slow progress and sharp divisions on critical issues such as climate finance, which fueled discontent from developing countries. 

On many levels, COP 29 in Baku failed to deliver on crucial topics because of the failures of Bonn that year.  

This year’s SB 62 appears to have borrowed the script from SB 60, if the delayed start to the process is anything to go by.  

On this last day of the Bonn climate talks, can SB 62 shake off the shortcomings of past editions to anchor COP 30 in Brazil on a path to success? And what pitfalls must SB 62 avoid in these dying moments to deliver for the people and the planet? 

Finance 

Last year, the main battleground was climate finance, as it is this year. In Bonn in 2024, rich nations were accused of foot-dragging, frustrating efforts to reach an agreement on how the world would finance climate action.  

According to Mohamed Adow, negotiators from the Global North undermined the key outcomes of COP28. ‘‘Developed countries are backtracking on their commitments made in Dubai to accelerate discussions around climate finance,’’ said the director of Power Shift Africa. 

‘‘Rich countries have always dragged their feet when it comes to paying their fair share to tackle the climate crisis – a crisis their emissions have caused,’’ added Adow, describing developed countries’ approach at SB 60 as ‘‘simply unacceptable’’.  

Adow’s sentiments were shared by Mariana Paoli, the Global Advocacy Lead at Christian Aid. Ms Paoli said at the time: “The lack of progress on the finance negotiations is very disappointing. Rich countries to step up and deliver their financial commitments.’’  

Paoli said that after two years of negotiations on the NCQG, developed countries had still not shown how much money they are willing to commit. And at SB 60, this was not done either. 

At COP 29, developed countries committed only $300 billion in climate finance under the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), a fraction of the $1.3 trillion demanded by developing countries.   

Said Adow after the outcome: ‘‘COP29 has been a disaster for the developing world. It’s a betrayal of both people and planet, by wealthy countries who claim to take climate change seriously.’’ 

In his assessment, Adow said Baku would be remembered ‘‘for enabling rich polluters to cheat their way out of actual emission reductions’’ using dubious pollution permit markets.  

Global Stocktake and Just Transition 

Another failure of Bonn 2024 was on the Global Stocktake (GST). Other than what Marine Pouget described as ‘‘a long list of statements’’ SB 60 yielded minimal progress in making Nationally Determined Contributions more ambitious.  

‘‘We need climate action, not a climate talk shop. We hope the Global Stocktake UAE Dialogue will bring the ambition we need to keep 1.5°C alive,” said Ms Pouget, the Global Governance Policy Advisor at Climate Action Network, France.  

Little surprise that the first Global Stocktake (GST) lacked a conclusive outcome later that year in Baku at COP29. Parties did not reach a consensus on how to move forward with the GST outcomes or advance the Just Transition Work Programme.  

The GST process, as mandated by the Paris Agreement, aims to evaluate collective progress by countries towards climate goals, including limiting emissions to 1.5C degrees below pre-industrial levels.   

Adaptation 

On the adaptation front, progress was slow at SB 60 as countries failed to agree on who should lead the work on identifying and developing the GGA indicators.  

SB60 saw discussions on the implementation of the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), but limited resources and capacity constraints hindrered concrete outcomes.  

NAPs are country blueprints for implementing adaptation interventions.  

At the Bonn climate talks in 2024, failure to secure sufficient finance for adaptation, particularly for African countries, was highlighted.  

This year, As the world waits for adaptation outcomes from the Bonn climate talks, the all-too-familiar delaying tactics have once again rocked progress on the NAPs.  

In the negotiation rooms, frustration has been evident among parties from developing countries, with hope fast fading on the possibility of a substantive outcome on NAPs.   

Articles 4.7 of the Convention and 9.1 require developed countries to ensure the transfer of technology and other means of implementation (finance and capacity building) to developing countries.  

At SB 62, wealthy nations have been unwilling to engage on any paragraphs that have conditionalities. 

While the need to scale up adaptation finance remains a critical priority, especially for developing countries, the push to have a new adaptation finance goal at SB 62 failed to gain momentum.  

GGA and GGA indicators 

At SB60, the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) saw some progress parties but lack of finance to implement the indicators was a key failure.  

Developing countries emphasised the need for public finance to support adaptation efforts, with some quarters dismissing the GGA as an ‘‘empty shell’’ without the means of implementation.  

At COP 29, negotiators agreed to develop 100 indicators to measure adaptation progress and also launched the Baku Adaptation Road Map. Divisions regarding financial mechanisms and implementation strategies, however, emerged.  

In Bonn this year, negotiators are still tussling on the number and quality of indicators, with the main work being to trim the current indicators from 409 down to about 100.  

There are also efforts to ensure the GGA indicators are ‘‘technically sound and scientifically robust’’ according to Lina Adil, a policy advisor on adaptation and loss and damage at Germanwatch. Ms Adil emphasises that this process shouldn’t be merely a technical one as witnessed in past climate talks.  

‘‘There’s a crucial need to engage with the future of the GGA on a political level,’’ Ms Adil notes.  

She adds: ‘‘This needs to start in Bonn and continue in Belem. At COP 30, we expect the work programme to adopt the indicators but also to guide the implementation, both at the global and local levels.’’ 

Women and Gender 

At SB 60, the lack of progress and the untimely distractions eroded trust, ultimately disrupting an ambitious Work Programme on Gender.” 

Later that year at COP29, the gender work experienced a deadlock. The COP had been seen as critical for the implementation of the Lima Work Programme on Gender and its Gender Action Plan.  

According to Ndivile Mokoena, the coordinator of Gender CC South Africa, parties failed to agree on the means of implementation and language on human rights, intersectionality and diversity.  

Instead, COP 29 delivered an extended Enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender for the next 10 years, with plans to establish a Gender Action Plan (GAP) at COP30. 

‘‘This is not good at all,’’ said Ms Mokeona at the time. ‘‘It means we are starting all over again whereas we were supposed to implement what has been discussed all the years together with workshops conducted.’’ 

 The GAP is set to advance gender equality and women’s empowerment in the UNFCCC processes and help to foster gender-transformative climate action.  

Parties agreed to start developing the GAP at SB62, with the aim of recommending a draft decision for consideration and adoption at COP30. In Bonn, a mandated workshop took place during SB 62 to facilitate the design of gender action plan activities. 

Once again, the process faced pushback on the language of gender diversity, human rights, and environmental rights.  

Experts will continue to work on the text before COP 30.