From Belém to Bonn: Seeking consensus in a ruptured world
In a few days I’m heading back to Bonn, Germany for the UNFCCC’s annual June climate meetings. This meeting marks the mid-point between climate COPs when delegates re-convene to advance work mandated by the previous conference and attempt to progress agenda items that were stalled or deferred. The official name for this gathering is the “sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, but most people just call it the SB. Among non-government attendees, participation at the SB is generally limited to the real climate policy nerds (myself included!) who follow specific agenda items or workstreams, such as the Just Transitions Dialogue or the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP).
The whole conference takes place on the UNFCCC’s Bonn Campus situated along the leafy banks of the Rhine River. There are official side events, but there are no blue or green zones and no cavernous exhibition hall. Like COP, the SB also draws climate activists, but these protests are much smaller and tend to be oriented towards specific campaigns (veganism, fossil fuel phase out).
The SB is a working meeting, which means there are no negotiated outcomes. There are no ministers, no heads of state, and thus, limited media attention. Historically, this has lowered the temperature a bit, allowing for more dialogue, spontaneous bilaterals, and compromise ahead of the next round of COP negotiations.
But increasingly, as new items are added to the COP agenda each year, some of that workload is getting shifted to the June meetings, which crowds the schedule and puts more pressure on negotiators. There are now at least a week of coordination meetings leading up to the SB, and at least one formal committee meeting taking place afterwards. For some country delegates, this means almost four full weeks of programming to attend each June.
Last year, there was an unprecedented delay to the start of the SB, when a few negotiating groups refused to formally adopt the agenda. The official programme was put on hold for three days while Parties hashed out their disagreement about what should and should not be included on the formal agenda, further compressing the two-week schedule down to just eight working days.
This is an unfortunate but unsurprising side effect of the growing tension between the Convention’s negotiating Parties. After another fierce round of negotiations at COP30 last November, I have no doubt that delegates will arrive in Bonn still feeling a bit bruised by how things were pushed through at the last minute in Belém. While Parties ultimately reached “consensus” on a wide-ranging package of items – including the first-ever set of indicators to track adaptation action under the Paris Agreement – many items were left unfinished or rushed through with confusing or conflicting mandates. For example, we now have two distinct but overlapping processes for advancing action on the Global Goal on Adaptation.
Other topics, like the transition away from fossil fuels – an issue at the heart of the Paris Agreement – have been taken out of the COP process entirely. After failing once again to get consensus on language supporting the fossil fuels transition at COP30, a subset of Parties decided to hold a series of independent, voluntary meetings to move forward on this issue. The first international fossil fuels meeting was held last month in Colombia.
And just last week, 141 countries supported a new UN General Assembly resolution endorsing a landmark International Court of Justice ruling, which affirms that all governments have a legal obligation to combat the climate crisis. These are notable innovation in global climate policy, and it will be interesting to see how delegates try to reconcile decisions taken outside of the Convention with the fossil fuels transition roadmap identified at COP30.
As we’ve noted before, the breakdown of negotiations in the UNFCCC reflects the larger, ongoing rupture in multilateral cooperation. Countries ready and willing to do the hard work of implementation are fed up with the efforts of a few powerful countries intent on slowing or reversing global progress on climate change. These countries rightly argue that we cannot wait any longer to take decisive action. For this reason, it is certainly possible that we will see this trend continue: where the most politicized topics are simply removed from the COP agenda and discussed in separate fora.
Given the geopolitical moment we find ourselves in, this may be the most reasonable approach to ensure that action on the ground continues. At the same time, climate change is a genuinely global issue and without major emitters on board, the core goals of the Paris Agreement will not be met. Without sufficient funding, many of the countries who wish to act now will be unable to do so.
So where does this leave the UNFCCC negotiations? And what is the value of the SB in this context? Is there any use in seeking global consensus on these issues? Or must we rely instead on “coalitions of the willing” to lead us? For me, the answer is not “either/or” but rather “both/and.” Progress will be uneven, unnecessary losses will continue, but we are already seeing the positive effects of climate action around the world. From major breakthroughs, like China becoming the first country in the world to install over 1 Terawatt of solar photovoltaic capacity, to smaller but no less impressive accomplishments, such as the reversal of decades of overfishing and coral collapse in western Fiji thanks to community-led marine resilience initiatives, real progress is being made.
Conferences like the SB remain important moments for participants from all around the world to gather, share experiences, learn from one another, and yes, negotiate. But if we focus too much on the disappointment of negotiations, we risk missing the larger, much more positive, story: the world is acting. In every region, every country, from small villages to megacities, individuals, companies, and national governments are taking steps to reduce their emissions and improve their resilience to the impacts of climate change.
We do not need to wait for consensus, nor must we abandon our institutions. We should push our leaders to do more, and act as individuals and communities. This is the moment in which we find ourselves, and I for one am looking forward to learning and growing with my global community in Bonn next month. I hope to see some of you there!
Ingrid Timboe
Portland, Oregon, USA
Enjoy reading essays like this? Please subscribe to the AGWA family of newsletters! You can join AGWA and subscribe here.