· 5 min read
Another round of intersessional climate meetings in Bonn (SB62) has passed. What it tells us is what most observers have expected all along: the road to the Belem negotiations (COP30) will be as difficult as in previous years.
None of the most notable developments took place within the identified priority workstreams by the COP30 Presidency of global goal on adaptation, just transition, or the Global Stocktake. Instead, they occurred in issues of little intended focus or even in the procedural side, none of which shine a positive light into what might happen in five months.
AIM higher?
Throughout SB62, it was evident that the decline in trust in the multilateralism that has been driving these climate talks continues. With the backdrop of conflicts engulfing parts of the world and the United States boycotting the summit, instances such as another delay in the adoption of the agenda signify that Parties and Observers alike are getting tired of the same old slow process.
During the second week, there was a slight but noticeable change in the atmosphere of the conference venue. With many negotiators and other stakeholders opting to attend the London Climate Week, the vibe inside the building, especially during the final day, changed from chaotic to almost eerily quiet.
This could be a preview of a possible shift in multistakeholder engagements under the global climate agenda for years to come. The direction of discourse under the Paris Agreement would always have shifted towards implementation, with the COP30 Presidency actively promoting an Action Agenda.
Yet with another plodding round of Bonn talks and funding challenges limiting the UNFCCC to regularly conduct Regional Climate Weeks, action-oriented events like the London Climate Week and the upcoming one in Bangkok are attracting more governments, businesses, civil society groups, and communities that want more concrete and urgent solutions than arguments about synonyms and punctuation marks.
Even within the framework of the negotiations, the workstream of Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM) is gaining more focus. This issue that is usually discussed only during the intersessionals would likely be directly addressed at the COP itself, as the need for reforms in the process becomes undeniable.
Tackling an evolving crisis like climate change requires the decision-making process to also change. Many proposals are being put forward on its improvement: limiting the size of large Party delegations, banning fossil fuel lobbyists, ensuring negotiators from the Global South would not have their visas rejected, ensuring sufficient and affordable accommodations for everyone, even moving away from consensus-building among all Parties.
Over these next few months, the UNFCCC, the COP30 Presidency, and others have to understand that climate action is not the only aspect of this work where they need to aim higher.
Mitigate, roadblocks?
Remember when everyone was hailing the COP28 decision that for the first time ever, all countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels?
It has only been less than two years since that “momentous” “achievement”, yet it feels like a lifetime ago not just because of the slow pace of the negotiations making it feel like that long.
Once again, Parties in Bonn failed to even agree on what the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) is about. The workstream that is expected by many to be where ways forward on tripling renewable energy, doubling energy efficiency, and other mitigation-centric decisions are supposed to be identified – instead became the space for yet another digital platform.
While such platforms are necessary, it has been turned into a distraction by some countries to avoid addressing the most famous goal of the Paris Agreement: limiting global warming to “well-below 2°C’”, if not pursue efforts to limit it to the 1.5°C that is increasingly becoming inevitable than avoidable.
Speaking of goals of the Paris Agreement, negotiations in most workstreams, including the three priorities of the COP30 Presidency, reached the familiar roadblock that is climate finance – an irony considering it is intended to be an enabler of climate action.
Even the delay in the agenda adoption boils down to the fundamental divide between developed nations and developing countries – whether on directly addressing the latter’s failure to provide sufficient public finance to the former as indicated under the Paris Agreement, or indirectly through discussions on unilateral trade measures.
While both of these were eventually integrated into other parts of the SB62 agenda instead of being their own items, not much progress was made in either matter.
The road ahead
While the high-level COPs get far most attention, SBs are where most of the actual negotiations happen – where the technical details of the decisions to be made a few months later would be settled or at least show significant progress. Through this lens, it is normal for negotiations on some agenda items from the intersessionals to be continued at the COP itself.
But what stood out in Bonn this time was that procedural reforms are needed now more than ever. As crucial as bilateral agreements or the emergence of new spaces for engagement are, the bottomline is the climate crisis cannot be addressed without multilateralism. Overcoming the longstanding roadblocks cannot be done without it as well.
By the way, what is the Belem summit supposed to be? The Peoples’ COP? The just transition COP? The nature COP? Is it about the Action Agenda?
While COPs obviously cover all workstreams, there is always one or two prominent issues that will define its legacy and impact. If the world wants to streamline this climate negotiating process, perhaps Brazil needs to identify which of these it should prioritize the most. After all, the road is sometimes only as good as the destination itself.
But in addressing the climate crisis at a milestone COP, every bit of that road, the destination, and what comes after all matter.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
