Stalled Negotiations and the Rise of the Global Climate Action Agenda: Reflections on SB 64
I’ve recently returned home from attending the first week of the Bonn Climate Change Conference (SB 64) where Parties to the UNFCCC met to advance new agenda items adopted at COP30 as well as progress existing mandates and work programmes. For those of you following outcomes from Bonn, you’ll already be aware that the conference was, in a word, disappointing. On the major issues of mitigation, adaptation, and finance, no consensus could be reached, and any progress on these work programmes will be delayed until after COP31, at the earliest, provided Parties can come to agreement in Türkiye.
The mitigation work programme (MWP) has been mired in administrative controversy since the beginning and I’m not sure there was much hope that things would change in Bonn this year. On the topic of adaptation, however, the outcome is especially disappointing because the discussions during week one were actually quite positive, with Parties and negotiating groups putting forward substantive proposals for advancing the work on adaptation indicators under the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). While the usual issues of adaptation finance and the role of Parties versus technical experts continued to be raised, there was hope until the very end that a bridging proposal would be accepted by the Parties. This would have given the SB Chairs the approval needed to move forward on time-sensitive mandates, including the convening of a technical task force to support the operationalization of the GGA indicators. But in the end, the bridge failed and negotiations will be paused until COP31.
Behind the scenes, we heard from several Parties that they are desperate to get on with it and keen to find common ground. However, negotiating positions hardened towards the end, and the seeming lack of urgency from some to resolve remaining differences will do nothing to ease ongoing tension or restore trust between countries.
More broadly, there is growing frustration with a proliferation of agenda items and mandates that can be seen as distracting from or diluting the core objective of the UNFCCC: stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent dangerous outcomes for people and the planet. I noted in my previous essay that one of the most contentious issues at the heart of this objective, the transition away from fossil fuels, is already side-stepping the consensus process through a series of voluntary, non-Convention conferences that began earlier this year. The Santa Marta Process was referenced many times in Bonn, with much debate about how to reconcile the lively discussions in Colombia with what is, and is not, happening on mitigation within the formal negotiations process. I expect that discussion to resume in Antalya.
Coming out of the SB, we know the negotiations at COP31 will be tense. However, the attitude and messaging from the COP31 Co-Presidents, Türkiye and Australia, was quite positive in Bonn. I attended a briefing for observer organizations with COP31 President Designate, Minister Murat Kurum, and COP31 President of Negotiations, Minister Chris Bowen. Both spoke passionately about their shared vision for an inclusive, action-oriented, and ambitious COP31 agenda. Minister Kurum spoke about Türkiye’s Global Climate Action Agenda, including an ambitious electrification target and a focus on circular economy and zero waste.
Water was also highlighted. Under the existing FAST Partnership, Türkiye has announced the Turquoise Nexus Initiative, which will be launched at COP31 and aims to develop a common agenda for climate-resilient, water-centered agriculture and food systems, promoting integrated approaches to addressing water, food, and climate in countries’ NDCs and NAPs. The TNI will convene governments, international organizations, research institutions, civil society, and the private sector around this common agenda starting in 2027. As we learn more about this initiative, we’ll be sure to share information in our newsletters, so stay tuned.
I also had the opportunity to speak in a series of roundtables convened by the COP30 and COP31 Presidencies, who asked non-state actors to report on progress made over the last six months on the COP30 Global Climate Action Agenda. Here I was able to give an update on the Water Resilience Tracker initiative in Brazil, Nepal, and Malawi. The conference room was packed and there was clearly a high sense of enthusiasm all around.
The longstanding disconnect between the Action Agenda and the negotiations agenda remains. However, as progress in negotiations stalls, increasing attention is being paid to the Action Agenda. Even putting aside the challenge of negotiations, it makes sense that the work of cities, NGOs, civil society, and the private sector would become more prominent as countries implement their climate commitments. Governments make the commitments and set the enabling environment. But implementation is done by everyone else.
Brazil really set the stage for this at COP30 with its ambitious global mutirão agenda, centered on an ethos of community-led climate action bringing together governments, civil society, and businesses. When progress stalled on mitigation in the closing negotiations, Brazil supported a proposal, led by Colombia and the Netherlands, to set up the voluntary Santa Marta process. Brazil clearly recognized the limitations of consensus-based negotiations (as was also demonstrated by the unfortunate breakdown of the closing plenary during COP30), and the need to open up the conversation.
Whether or not Brazil will be able to fully deliver on its ambition is an open question (they retain the COP Presidency until COP31), but COP30 certainly paved the way for future COPs in terms of broadening the reach of the Action Agenda. Since Australia has the unenviable job of leading the negotiations at COP31, Türkiye is free to focus more on the Action Agenda. Based on what I saw in Bonn, Türkiye appears to be following in Brazil’s footsteps, building on the COP30 mutirão with its own ambitious plans, including those referenced above.
In this way, the novel co-hosting arrangement for COP31 could actually benefit the COP process overall; instead of having one Party responsible for both the negotiations and the increasingly large Action Agenda, the two co-hosts can focus on their respective mandates. The workability of this arrangement will, of course, largely depend on how well the two Parties can work together to bridge and reinforce their respective mandates. The initial signs in Bonn were positive, but we’ll have to wait and see if the good vibes can last.
Enjoy reading essays like this? Please subscribe to the AGWA family of newsletters! You can join AGWA and subscribe here.