SRINAGAR & BONN, Jul 11 2025 (IPS) - This 62nd meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) from June 16 to 26, 2025 revealed the persistent complexities and political tensions that continue to challenge multilateral climate governance.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) convened its 62nd meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) from June 16 to 26, 2025 – a critical juncture in the global climate negotiation process ahead of the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) set for November in Belém, Brazil.
Often referred to as a “mini-COP”, SB62 serves as a mid-year platform where negotiators and technical experts advance discussions on implementing the Paris Agreement and lay the groundwork for decisions at the COP.
While some progress was made on adaptation and procedural issues, key areas such as climate finance, technology, and scientific assessments remained contentious. Interviews with climate experts Jennifer Chow of the Environmental Defence Fund and Meredith Ryder-Rude shed light on systemic challenges within the UNFCCC process and offered insights into pathways for more effective climate action.
Jennifer Chow of the Environmental Defense Fund
Deadlock That Foreshadowed the Tense and Fractious Atmosphere
The Bonn conference brought together government delegations, UN agencies, intergovernmental organisations, Indigenous and youth representatives, and civil society observers. The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) focused on operational matters including finance, capacity-building, and gender equality, while the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) addressed scientific guidance and technical issues such as carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
Brazil, as COP30 host, fielded the largest delegation with 173 provisional attendees, signalling its intent to influence the upcoming COP agenda. The Brazilian COP presidency outlined three priorities: reinforcing multilateralism, connecting climate regime outcomes with people’s everyday lives, and accelerating Paris Agreement implementation through institutional reforms.
Yet the meeting’s opening was marked by a two-day delay in adopting the agenda, largely due to disagreements over including discussions on developed countries’ finance obligations under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. This early procedural deadlock foreshadowed the tense and fractious atmosphere permeating the conference.
How Scientific Discussions Remained Politically Sensitive
Adaptation emerged as a focal point, with negotiators agreeing on a refined list of global adaptation indicators, including measures related to access to financing — a key demand from developing countries. Steps were also taken toward transitioning the Adaptation Fund to operate exclusively under the Paris Agreement framework and clarifying loss and damage reporting procedures.
Nonetheless, the broader finance discussions exposed deep divides. The collective quantified goal (NCQG) of USD 300 billion, established at COP29 in Baku, continues to be a source of dissatisfaction, especially among developing nations seeking more predictable and adequate funding. These finance issues cut across multiple agenda items, influencing adaptation, transparency, and just transition talks.
Scientific discussions remained politically sensitive. Although the parties agreed to “take note” of recent scientific reports from the World Meteorological Organisation, stronger language expressing concern about current warming trends was blocked by some countries. This reflected ongoing sensitivity around acknowledging the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature limit.
Streamlining, Trust, and Effective Finance Delivery
In an exclusive interview with Inter Press Service, Jennifer Chow, Senior Director for Climate-Resilient Food Systems at the Environmental Defense Fund, highlighted structural challenges impeding UNFCCC efficiency and effectiveness:
“As is true for other multilateral processes, it is nearly impossible to address a growing list of issues efficiently without a concerted effort to prioritise, simplify approaches, and partner with others who may not require budgetary support. I think this is more pertinent to focus on than funding fluctuations.”
Chow claimed that the proliferation of agenda items and ballooning delegation sizes have complicated negotiations. “There are too many agenda items—and delegations have ballooned as a result. The secretariat and bureau could closely examine the COP, CMA, and SB agendas, propose streamlining, and develop a list of agenda items to sunset over the next two years, as some issues may no longer require negotiation. In some areas, constituted bodies can take up the work. Closing agenda items does not have to equal a lack of ambition.”
She also pointed to the trust deficit within the process.
“We can focus on giving more time for areas of convergence and less ‘unlimited’ time on issues where there is no consensus. Additionally, we need to give more leadership roles to Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). We have conflated progress review and rule-making, and renegotiating matters that were already agreed upon can erode trust.”
On countries’ climate plans, Chow stressed the need to prioritise implementation. “A plan is a plan. Evidence of implementation and progress towards 2030 commitments should be highlighted just as much as new 2035 commitments. Let’s not lose sight of the critical decade and sprint to 2030. Stronger implementation now will result in more ambitious plans later.”
Environmental Defense Fund’s expert Meredith Ryder-Rude
Meredith Ryder-Rude, also from the Environmental Defense Fund, shed light on the reasons behind stalled adaptation finance negotiations and the challenges of ensuring funds reach vulnerable communities.
“The recent negotiations stalled because the sticking point has historically been disagreement over which funding sources can be ‘counted’ towards adaptation finance goals. There is no disagreement over the urgent need for dramatically higher adaptation finance, but political and ideological differences remain over what types of funding from developed countries are truly delivering adaptation outcomes.”
She explained the complexity of adaptation finance integration.
“Guidance directs countries to mainstream adaptation in development, economic, and financial planning. Given distrust between parties and the severe impacts and costs involved, finding middle ground is difficult. Developed country budgets are tight, and those controlling funds are often not closely involved in climate discussions or understanding of multilateral climate funds, creating a big gap to bridge.”
On improving the effectiveness of finance delivery, Ryder-Rude highlighted the importance of capacity building in recipient countries. “One of the most critical ways to ensure climate finance reaches vulnerable communities effectively is increasing absorptive and financial management capacity at the local level. Funding levels have remained largely static for decades. We focus much on unlocking more funding—the supply side—but more attention is needed on the demand side.”
She pointed to promising models emerging from developing countries. “National-level organisations serve as aggregators managing multimillion-dollar grants from multilaterals and disbursing smaller grants to local community groups. They mentor these groups to increase independence and ability to manage larger sums over time. Eventually, local organisations can manage funding directly with donors. We need more small grant programmes, more national aggregators familiar with local contexts, and generally more trusting, flexible financing—especially for adaptation.”
Empowering most vulnerable remains critical to the UNFCCC’s future effectiveness
Meanwhile, with the world approaching the COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the outcomes of SB62 reveal both the urgency and difficulty of advancing ambitious climate action. Key issues expected to dominate the COP agenda include operationalising the new collective quantified goal for climate finance, finalising rules for carbon markets under Article 6, and translating adaptation frameworks into real-world support.
Countries were expected to submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) aligned with the 1.5°C target; however, nearly 95 percent missed the informal February 2025 deadline, raising concerns about political will and transparency.
Brazil’s presidency faces scrutiny over inclusiveness and transparency, especially regarding its proposed Circle of Finance Ministers tasked with developing a new climate finance roadmap. Questions about Belém’s capacity to host an effective COP add another layer of complexity.
Geopolitical challenges—including the notable absence of a formal U.S. delegation due to previous administration policies—further underscore the fragility of global climate leadership. In this context, rebuilding trust, streamlining negotiating processes, and empowering the most vulnerable remain critical to the UNFCCC’s future effectiveness.
IPS UN Bureau Report
