LIVE UPDATES: Bonn Climate Conference 2025
LIVE Updates
We’re bringing you the latest updates from the Bonn Climate Conference 2025. Follow the activities and announcements live.
-
Day 8 at Bonn Climate Talks: Visas, NAPs and the murky waters of GGA
Two days to the end of the SB62 talks in in Bonn this year, the heat is rising, but only in some quarters. The NAPs are at risk, the text on adaptation is weak on substance, and there is agitation that we consider moving these talks to more visa-friendly countries. Here, a summary from Day 8.
Take the SBs to visa-friendly countries
Civil society organisations staged a protest at the June Climate Talks (#SB62) in Bonn, Germany, calling out the ongoing exclusion of Global South delegates due to visa denials. Speakers at the action revealed that over 200 delegates from the Global South were denied visas for the meetings, despite many representing countries hit hardest by the climate crisis. The protest raised a key question: how legitimate are global climate negotiations when those most affected are shut out by travel barriers? Activists called for future SB sessions to be hosted in visa-friendly countries, ensuring fair access for all.
NAPs at risk… again
The world is watching Bonn for progress on adaptation, but National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) are once again in limbo. Negotiations are stalling, and delegates from the Global South are growing increasingly frustrated. NAPs are crucial blueprints for country-level adaptation, especially in vulnerable nations. But under the Paris Agreement (Article 9.1) and the UNFCCC (Article 4.7), these plans hinge on developed countries providing finance, technology, and capacity-building support. That support is still not forthcoming. Talks are gridlocked, and positions are hardening. With little movement on the means of implementation, hopes for a meaningful NAP outcome are slipping away.
GGA draft still murky on support
The latest draft of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), dated 24 June 2025, shows some progress, including vague mentions of support indicators, but key language remains weak. Of particular concern: references to removing indicators tied to official development assistance, and the bracketing of national budget provisions. This suggests an attempt to dilute developed countries’ responsibilities and shift more of the financial burden onto developing countries. Without clarity, these indicators risk becoming empty reporting tools rather than real levers for finance. The next draft will reveal whether the GGA stays true to the Convention—or becomes another watered-down outcome.
-
On Day 7 at SB62 in Bonn, time… and patience… wear thin for African negotiators
As SB62 enters its final stretch in Bonn, the mood among African negotiators is one of cautious determination. Day 7 exposed both the slow grind of the UNFCCC process and the rising frustration of African countries who feel time, energy and patience… are fast running out.
One of the clearest wins so far has been Africa’s leadership in pushing Nature-based Solutions (NbS) up the agenda.
Backed by coalitions like Nature4Climate, negotiators from Kenya, Uganda, and other countries framed NbS not just as a climate solution, but as an engine for economic development, one that could deliver up to 30 million green jobs by 2030.
It’s a narrative that’s landing well, particularly among parties seeking adaptation pathways that also stimulate livelihoods.
There was also some good movement on transparency and reporting frameworks.
Eswatini and Seychelles joined other Commonwealth nations in calling for more targeted support to help African countries meet Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) requirements under the Paris Agreement.
As many African countries gear up to submit their first Biennial Transparency Reports, this support is existential.
But while the adaptation and NbS agenda gained ground, finance negotiations are dragging like a punctured tyre.
Africa came to Bonn with a clear ask: deliver on the $300 billion a year promised in Baku and the $1.3 trillion by 2035.
Africa demands that future climate finance must be grants-based, not loan-heavy.
Instead, there have been delays, deflection and little clarity from developed countries.
The sense of déjà vu is unmistakable and wearing thin. Without predictable, adequate funding, most African states can’t scale adaptation or loss and damage programmes. The frustration is growing.
A familiar headache also returned in the form of agenda deadlock. A tussle between mitigation-heavy priorities pushed by the Global North and the adaptation-centred focus of the Global South, particularly Africa, meant early negotiations stalled.
The stalemate echoes the wider climate justice imbalance; the continent that’s contributed the least to the climate crisis still has to shout the loudest to be heard.
Unexpectedly, the ghost of Busan haunted the talks. The failed plastics treaty negotiations in South Korea have spilled into Bonn, especially among African delegations still smarting from what they call “waste colonialism.”
With countries like Kenya and Rwanda having led the charge for a binding global plastics agreement, there’s growing concern that voluntary, watered-down deals are becoming the global norm at Africa’s expense.
Meanwhile, outside the negotiation rooms, real-world impacts are reminding everyone why this matters.
Deadly floods in Nigeria’s Mokwa region were raised by several side-event speakers. With over 200 reported deaths and hundreds missing, the human cost of climate inaction was laid bare.
It gave a gut-level urgency to African demands for grant-based loss and damage finance, not as charity but as compensation.
Another sharp shift on Day 7 came from civil society and human rights advocates. Groups from Zambia, Kenya, India and Indonesia are jointly pushing for loss and damage finance to be explicitly human-rights-based.
African countries are aligning with this demand, pointing out that without such framing, vulnerable communities remain at the mercy of unpredictable markets and opaque processes.
On the science side, CGIAR and other research bodies have been making the case for integrating evidence-backed innovation into climate response planning. Their push for targeted support on adaptation, particularly for African agriculture and food systems, is beginning to find sympathetic ears.
Whether this translates into actual money and capacity post-Bonn remains uncertain.
So where does Africa stand?
There’s momentum on nature and adaptation, and a growing continental voice on climate justice. But the finance wall remains high.
African negotiators are also increasingly wary of being left to carry the burden of implementation while richer countries continue to delay, dodge or dilute commitments.
In summary: Africa is holding its ground, and increasingly setting the tone, particularly on justice, transparency, and locally grounded solutions.
The risk is that without tangible progress on finance, these gains remain rhetorical.
The next few days in Bonn will determine whether the Global North is ready to move beyond promises and show real partnership, or whether Africa must once again leave a COP preparatory session with little more than polite applause and vague declarations.
PSA is on the ground and will continue to bring you updates by the minute on the events unfolding at the climate talks, the stances of different countries and blocs and the outcomes.
Stay with us.
-
Week 1 Recap
What did they say?
The first week of the Bonn climate talks was characterised by delays but also sensational pronouncements by leading negotiators and diplomats.
Here, we look at some of the statements and how they could define the landscape of the ongoing negotiations and the outcomes later this week.
Richard Muyungi, Chair, African Group of Negotiators
‘‘The African Group calls for a renewed global commitment, grounded in equity and urgency, to move from rhetoric to results.’’
On SB 62: We are here (in Bonn) to engage constructively and move the process forward under the Subsidiary Bodies. The world is watching. Our delays here have far-reaching implications for the future of humanity.
On Africa’s commitment to multilateralism: The African Group remains firm in its commitment to multilateralism as the cornerstone of global climate action.
On shifting geopolitics: In a world facing rising fragmentation and deepening inequalities, the UNFCCC is where the voices of all, especially the most vulnerable, can shape our shared climate future.
On the Paris Agreement: The Paris Agreement cannot succeed without decisive leadership and urgent follow-through.
On Africa’s climate leadership: Africa is ready to lead, prepared to act, and ready to work with all partners to ensure that we advance work here and that COP30 delivers on the promises of Paris through equitable and effective implementation
On COP 30: COP30 must be the implementation COP, driven by political will at the highest level. It’s time to move from promises to delivery, from frameworks to action.
Simon Stiell, CEO, UNFCCC
On the delayed start to SB 62: The past 30 hours have been hard. And have not reflected the urgency that we face. Yes, the issues have been complex, as they usually are. But now we have a consensus.
On multilateralism: Even if imperfect, even if no country or group gets everything it wants, climate multilateralism has delivered clear progress at each recent COP.
On what’s at stake: More is needed. And faster. We need to demonstrate to the world that climate cooperation can deliver. Now more than ever.
On COP 30: If we want COP30 to take us another global step forward, we need the next eight days to deliver concrete progress, across all aspects of the agenda.
On making up for lost time: We must now move the work ahead. This means we will need to make up time. We are working on practical ways to help you do so, including extending the availability of these facilities. The time is short, so let’s get to work.
André Aranha Correa do Lago, COP 30 President-designate
On progress of the last decade: Over the past 10 years, we have witnessed unstoppable growth in engagements, initiatives, and innovations from public and private stakeholders.
On being off-track: Despite outstanding breakthroughs and progress, we are still off track to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. To course-correct, the world must scale and accelerate efforts to meet our commitments.
On commitments of the COP 30 presidency: The incoming Presidency is working to ensure that the Action Agenda contributes to putting into practice what we have collectively agreed so far.
On multilateralism: In strengthening multilateralism, we will connect the UNFCCC to peoples’ lives and accelerate the implementation of the Paris Agreement.Why does it matter?
The $1.3 trillion goal is not just a number; it’s meant to reflect the scale of action needed to meet climate targets. However, developing countries made it clear that this figure must be a baseline, not a lofty aspiration. The roadmap must be inclusive, transparent, and rooted in climate justice.
What is the big concern?
Structural issues like debt, high capital costs, and complex access continue to block funding for the Global South. The call from global south is to tackle these disablers, scale up grant-based finance, and ensure money flows to those who need it most.
What’s next?
Parties are pushing for a roadmap that supports real action from NDCs and NAPs, to just transition. They have also raised concerns about how these consultations are captured as constructive inputs to the development of the report on the Roadmap by the Presidencies. But the bigger test is political will. Will Baku to Belém be transformational in escalating climate finance ambition and action, or will it be just another climate finance buzzword?
Evans Njewa, Chair, Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group
On ineffective frameworks: We can no longer afford frameworks that look good on paper but fail to deliver where it matters most.
On GGA indicators: We call for a clear and credible roadmap to finalise measurable and meaningful indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). These indicators must go beyond vague commitments and drive real progress in enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing climate vulnerability.
On the Means of Implementation: Importantly, the indicators must include the means of implementation, namely, finance, technology, and capacity-building. Without these, adaptation will remain out of reach for many LDCs.
On doubling adaptation finance: While 2025 marks the deadline for developed countries to double adaptation finance, this target, in our strong view, is outdated, inadequate, and dangerously behind the times.
On tripling adaptation finance: Informed by science and the scale of escalating climate impacts, the LDC Group is calling for a bold leap: triple adaptation finance by 2030 as part of an ambitious New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) to meaningfully protect vulnerable communities on the frontlines of the climate collapse.
On Loss and Damage: The LDC Group expects rapid, direct, and simplified access to the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), prioritising frontline communities who are already bearing the brunt of climate impacts.
On COP 30: Ahead of COP30, we also expect a clear, fair, and time-bound pathway to implement the NCQG decision and deliver the $1.3 trillion annual climate finance goal by 2035.
On supporting the COP 30 presidency: We are committed to supporting the incoming presidency in rebuilding trust in the climate process. This means moving beyond processes to deliver real outcomes designed to secure a safer, fairer future for all.
-
Day 5 of the SB62 negotiations saw the conclusion of the first in-person consultation with Parties and stakeholders on the “Baku to Belém (B2B) Roadmap” plan to mobilise $1.3 trillion in climate finance annually by 2035. Hosted jointly by the Azerbaijani COP29 and Brazilian COP30 presidencies, the session finally took off after repeated delays of agenda adoption in the first two days.
Why does it matter?
The $1.3 trillion goal is not just a number; it’s meant to reflect the scale of action needed to meet climate targets. However, developing countries made it clear that this figure must be a baseline, not a lofty aspiration. The roadmap must be inclusive, transparent, and rooted in climate justice.
What is the big concern?
Structural issues like debt, high capital costs, and complex access continue to block funding for the Global South. The call from global south is to tackle these disablers, scale up grant-based finance, and ensure money flows to those who need it most.
What’s next?
Parties are pushing for a roadmap that supports real action from NDCs and NAPs, to just transition. They have also raised concerns about how these consultations are captured as constructive inputs to the development of the report on the Roadmap by the Presidencies. But the bigger test is political will. Will Baku to Belém be transformational in escalating climate finance ambition and action, or will it be just another climate finance buzzword?
-
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 said.
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.
Discussions about honouring past commitments have been unwelcome.
On Friday morning, Brazil, the host of COP 30 in November, called on countries to fulfil existing climate pledges before making new ones.
Brazilian diplomats are promising to facilitate a summit where hundreds of past climate pledges are met first.
In a letter, Brazil s COP30 President André Aranha Correa do Lago reminded countries of the need to honour what has already been agreed.
Despite these outstanding breakthroughs and progress, we are still off track to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, Aranha wrote.
Is Brazil opposed to new commitments? Not quite, they say.
We are not against new initiatives," said a top Brazilian diplomat, adding that they are focused on what has already been drawn up.
The lack of funding specific to just transition has also featured in the talks.
Chadli Sadorra, a climate justice campaigner with the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice said 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," Sadorra said.
The first draft of the GGA indicators is out and we'll be here to break it down for you.
-
#SB62 PDATE: ADAPTATION TALKS SHIFT GEARS AS AFRICA’S PRIORITIES TAKE CENTRE STAGE
After a sluggish start, negotiations at SB62 are finally hitting their stride. With the agenda now adopted, adaptation and resilience are moving from standby to full-throttle, and Africa is paying close attention. Here’s what we are hearing on Day 3.
Juma Ignatius, our Senior Policy Advisor on Adaptation and Resilience, cuts to the chase:
“The initial slow progress is over with the adoption of the agenda. We expect movement on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and, crucially, finance. For a continent on the frontline of the climate crisis, adaptation is not optional, but existential. We need tangible outcomes that unlock financial flows to help African communities survive and thrive. That’s the whole point of these negotiations.”
At the heart of this is the GGA, a framework meant to channel support where it's needed most. The next few days will focus on refining indicators to ensure they reflect real-world needs, especially for Africa. Meanwhile, National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) are also on the table, as countries debate how to turn plans into action. But no surprises here—no finance, no implementation. That’s why Bonn is buzzing with debate on how to fund adaptation where it matters most: in developing countries.
Fredrick Otieno, our Programmes Officer, has been following the discussions in the negotiation rooms, and says: “After drawn-out bickering, the SB62 agenda was finally adopted. Before that, adaptation talks were stuck in workshops and mandated events, with little room for real negotiation.”
Now, the wheels are turning. Day 3 saw informal consultations on the GGA resume in earnest, with strong momentum behind giving clear guidance to the indicator experts. Top of the list?
a. Timelines for refining indicators,
b. In-person coordination meetings, and
c. A final compilation of indicators ahead of SB63 in Belém.
Of course, not everyone’s rowing in the same direction. The African Group of Negotiators (AGN) stirred debate by calling for the expert phase to end and political negotiation to begin, especially on the 490 indicators already on the table. A middle ground? Start political talks on means of implementation indicators now, while experts polish up the rest. Australia pushed back hard, warning that cherry-picking parts of the GGA could derail the whole thing.
There is some consensus: parties are leaning towards two-tiered indicators, with headline goals and contextual sub-indicators. But where this goes depends on how the talks evolve over the next few days.
As for NAPs, things are heating up. The first informal consultation landed on a plan to use SB61’s text from Baku as the baseline. Expect screen-projected negotiations, paragraph-by-paragraph edits, and the usual tug-of-war. The G77+China bloc has already marked several paragraphs for deletion, and from where we sit, we think this could get spicy.
Bottom line? The adaptation track is moving, finally. But the speed and substance of that movement will depend on how willing parties are to face the real issue: money.
-
Negotiations on how the world will tackle climate change have officially started in Bonn, Germany, after parties finally adopted the agenda.
Heightened tension and uncertainty raged over SB 62 as countries battled over what to include in the negotiations.
This deadlocked the summit until late Tuesday night when negotiators agreed on the items.
As the deadlock raged, countries continued to hold bilateral meetings to smooth out the contentious issues.
Besides the procedural matters, 12 agenda items were approved for discussions.
The indicators of the Global Goal on Adaptation, just transition and Loss and Damage are some of the key issues to be negotiated.
Food and agriculture also feature in the agenda under the Sharm el-Sheikh joint work on implementation of climate action.
To some, the delay signalled a lack of urgency among countries to combat the climate crisis.
To others, it was an opportunity to voice their climate concerns.
‘‘Climate negotiations are a democratic process,’’ notes Saada Mohamed, a senior climate finance associate at Power Shift Africa.
She adds: ‘‘Parties must agree on the agenda before proceeding to discussions.’’
UN climate chief Simon Stiell is now asking countries of the world to move with speed in the next eight days to ‘‘deliver concrete progress.’’
‘‘Even if imperfect, even if no country or group gets everything it wants, climate multilateralism has delivered clear progress at each recent COP,’’ said Stiell.
However, the momentum has been lacking in the process.
‘‘[We] need to demonstrate to the world that climate cooperation can deliver. Now more than ever,’’ Stiell reminded the world during the opening ceremony.
-
The first day of the Bonn Climate Conference (SB62) ended in an impasse after countries failed to adopt the agenda of the climate conference.
This came after Bolivia introduced new items on the agenda that were contested by developed countries.
Bolivia wants the conference to discuss the implementation of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. The article states that developed countries “shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties”.
This comes at a time when finance commitments and pledges have slackened.
As the deadlock at SB 62 enters the second day, tension is mounting tension globally as Israel and Iran go to war.
President Trump left the G7 meeting in Canada early, possibly to intervene in the Middle East crisis.
On Monday, Bolivia also proposed a second item on “promoting international cooperation and addressing the concerns with climate change-related trade-restrictive unilateral measures”.
This is seen to target the EU’s tax on the carbon emissions of certain imported products.
These two ‘‘highly contentious’’ items kept the negotiations from taking off.
Climate negotiations adopt the agenda by a unanimous decision. If one Party blocks the omission or inclusion of an item in the agenda, it fails to pass.
Climate negotiations cannot begin formally until the agenda is adopted. However, Parties often reach a compromise to carry on with the negotiations and adopt the agenda later to formalise decisions.
One month ago, the Brazilian COP30 Presidency cautioned against “introducing potentially contentious new agenda items’’.
Brazil argued at the time that new items could burden the process further. They also saw new agenda items as a distraction from agreed priorities.
When asked about the impasse at SB 62, UN climate chief Simon Stiell said a lot was ‘‘still in progress.”
By Tuesday, 11:00 AM Bonn time, the ceremony had not started, with the main plenary starting to fill up.
