Bonn to Belém: A turning point in global climate diplomacy

This article is authored by Hareesh Chandra Panchagnula, manager, climate change and sustainability practice, IPE Global.

When most people think of international climate summits, they picture the high stakes drama of the annual COP gatherings presidents shaking hands, midnight negotiations, and last-minute breakthroughs. But far from the headlines, in the quiet German city of Bonn, another kind of diplomacy was quietly but powerfully unfolding.

Climate crisis (Shutterstock)

From June 16-26, 2025, negotiators, activists, scientists and observers gathered for SB 62 the 62nd sessions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Subsidiary Bodies (SBSTA and SBI). Being held amid challenging geopolitical circumstances, SB 62 was viewed as a pivotal opportunity to restore trust, especially on adaptation identified as a top priority. While it lacked the glitz of COP 29 in Baku or the anticipation surrounding COP 30 in Belém, SB 62 served as a bridge for technical dialogue to shape political ambition.

• Adaptation: The long elusive Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) finally started to take shape. For years, adaptation was the neglected sibling of mitigation hard to define, harder to quantify. But SB 62 began to change that.

From an astonishing 9,000 proposed indicators, experts managed to narrow the list to 490, with hopes of finalising 100 key indicators by COP 30. These metrics spanned critical areas: Water security, public health, resilient infrastructure and crucially with the enabling conditions such as finance, technology, and capacity building.

Developing countries, especially from the Global South, made a strong push for Means of Implementation (MoI) indicators to ensure that adaptation isn’t just measured by impacts, but also by access to funds, to knowledge and to systems that leave no one behind. The result was a hard-earned compromise, but one that finally acknowledges that adaptation is not charity but its climate justice.

Meanwhile, the Adaptation Fund came under the microscope, with growing support to align it solely with the Paris Agreement. While decisions were deferred to COP 30, the direction of travel was clear that a reform is coming and with it, a call for predictability and access.

• Climate finance: Despite its technical label, SB 62 wasn’t short on drama especially when it came to climate finance. The much-discussed Baku-to-Belém roadmap, which envisions mobilising $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, was at the centre stage. Yet the optimism was quickly tempered by concerns over the growing reliance on private finance, vague definitions of climate-aligned investments, and the chronic absence of grant based public funding especially for adaptation and loss and damage.

Finance disagreements were so intense, they delayed the opening of SB 62. For many developing countries, the message was blunt: without clear obligations and accountability, the climate finance promise risks becoming just another broken one.

Amidst the gridlock, India’s draft Climate Finance Taxonomy emerged as a quiet breakthrough. Designed to curb greenwashing and guide both public and private investments toward genuine climate solutions, it’s a tool many are now watching closely.

• Transparency: If climate action is to be credible, it must be measurable. SB 62 saw a critical review of the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) under the Paris Agreement.

New reporting templates and digital platforms were launched to simplify submissions and ensure consistency. For many Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), however, the challenge is still about resources and capacity.

To address this, SB 62 emphasised capacity-building and regional peer exchanges to support reporting. ETF isn’t just about numbers, it’s the backbone of the Global Stocktake, and a key driver of ambition. As countries prepare their NDCs 3.0, transparent reporting will determine whether the world believes the promises made.

• Inclusion in action: One of SB 62nd more hopeful notes came from the margins where energy often turns into action. Negotiations on a new Gender Action Plan (GAP) were launched, grounded in a collaborative workshop that brought together governments, youth leaders, and civil society. Though warmly welcomed, some questioned Brazil’s omission of gender equity from its COP 30 agenda raising concerns about long-term political will.

Meanwhile, youth presence was electric. Through initiatives like the Bonn Climate Camp and the Bed Exchange Programme, young activists turned Bonn into a hub of climate creativity. Their demand was clear: We don’t want token seats, we want real influence.

• Bonn dialogues: Beyond the negotiation halls, the Bonn Dialogues captured the spirit of multilevel climate action. From city mayors to tribal leaders, startups to slum communities, the dialogues illustrated one truth: Top-down policymaking can’t solve everything. Climate action must be co-created, not dictated. The sessions reflected a shift from pledges to implementation, from centralised decision-making to distributed leadership.
• Process reform: As the days ticked by, many began reflecting on the UNFCCC process itself. With over 50 agenda items and dozens of overlapping events, the machinery showed signs of strain. The proposals ranged from capping delegation sizes to sunsetting outdated negotiation tracks. Some floated the radical idea of majority-based decision making a sharp departure from the consensus model that, while inclusive, often leads to paralysis.

In response, Brazil unveiled its Action Agenda for COP 30 a 30-point plan to streamline talks and focus on delivery. It was bold, but also symbolic. As observers noted, “Efficiency is needed but not at the cost of inclusion.”

• The road to Belém: SB 62 didn’t make headlines, but it quietly clarified the stakes. It was a reminder that the hardest work often happens away from the cameras, and that the path to climate justice is paved with both policy and persistence.

The road to COP 30 in Belém is now shaped by urgent questions about finance, accountability, and equity. Whether it's finalising adaptation metrics or reforming climate finance, the world expects more than debate, it demands delivery. In his closing address, Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UNFCCC said, “We need to go further, faster, and fairer.”

This article is authored by Hareesh Chandra Panchagnula, manager, climate change and sustainability practice, IPE Global.