The June climate meetings of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany, opened this week with unusual tension. What should have been a routine adoption of the conference agenda turned into a 48-hour stalemate between rich and developing nations, reflecting deeper fault lines over climate finance and global trade.
The event, formally known as the 62nd Meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62), runs from June 16 to 26. But the real work couldn’t begin until late on the second day, June 17, because the countries couldn’t even agree on what they were supposed to talk about.
At the heart of the dispute were two fresh proposals from developing nations led by the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group, including India demanding fair discussions on climate finance and trade measures. The group wanted to add two key items to the agenda: one on developed nations’ responsibility to provide predictable, public climate finance under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, and another on opposing unilateral carbon-related trade barriers like Europe’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which developing nations argue are unfair and protectionist.
Developed countries, including the European Union, flatly refused.
The standoff meant that, for two days, none of the official negotiations could begin. The EU held firm behind closed doors, refusing to let these items onto the formal agenda, while the entire G77 group and China representing over 130 developing nations stood united in support of the LMDC proposals.
When the deadlock finally broke on the evening of June 17, it was a partial victory for the developed nations. The item on Article 9.1 finance was withdrawn from the agenda but will now be discussed informally during this session, with a report promised at the next UN climate summit, COP30 in Belem, Brazil, later this year. The item on trade-related unilateral measures was also withdrawn, but with a footnote added to the “Just Transition Work Programme” a small nod that the issue will be mentioned in broader discussions.
For many developing countries, the outcome was disappointing.
Speaking on behalf of the LMDC group, Bolivia and India sharply criticized the rich countries’ refusal to engage on what they see as a core obligation: direct, public climate finance that is predictable and accountable not the private-sector-driven funding schemes pushed by the West.
“This issue speaks to the blood of the Convention,” said Nigeria’s delegate, underlining the historic promise that rich countries would support poorer nations in coping with climate change.
The tension in Bonn follows unresolved disputes from COP29 in Baku, where a new $300 billion annual climate finance goal was agreed but with key language about developed countries’ direct funding obligations left vague. Developing countries argue that Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement clearly states that wealthy nations must provide public financial support, not just “mobilize” private capital. Yet once again, this demand was kicked down the road.
The second proposal opposing trade measures like the EU’s CBAM also reflects frustration. Countries like India, China, and Brazil see these carbon tariffs as unfair trade barriers dressed up as climate policy, designed to protect European industries while hurting exports from developing economies.
Though these two items won’t see formal negotiation at Bonn this time, developing countries have promised to bring them back, louder and stronger, at COP30 in Brazil.
With the agenda finally adopted, the conference moved on to other important discussions: the Just Transition Work Programme, the UAE Dialogue on the Global Stocktake, the Baku-to-Belem Roadmap on climate finance, and the Sharm El-Sheikh Dialogue on aligning finance flows with climate goals.
But the underlying divide remains: How should the burden of paying for climate action be shared between rich and poor? Who sets the rules of the global green economy? And will promises made in the Paris Agreement ever truly be kept?
For now, those answers like the climate talks themselves are postponed until another day.