A new briefing urges SB64 negotiators to turn climate pledges into action, addressing finance gaps, adaptation, loss and damage, just transition and implementation challenges before COP31.
Climate negotiations entering the 64th sessions of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Subsidiary Bodies in Bonn face a defining test over whether countries can translate years of climate pledges into concrete action on finance, adaptation, loss and damage, and just transition, according to a new briefing paper.
The briefing paper, titled Climate Negotiations are at the Crossroads: Strategic Imperatives at SB64, says the June 8-18 talks in Bonn present “critical opportunities and existential imperatives” for countries on the frontlines of climate change, including Bangladesh.
The paper argues that while annual UN climate summits are often remembered for dramatic negotiations and headline agreements, much of the foundation of global climate governance is shaped through the less-publicized meetings of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Bodies.
SB64 comes at a pivotal moment between COP30 in Belém and COP31 in Antalya. It follows the first Global Stocktake (GST-1) and the first full Paris Agreement ambition cycle, marking a transition from rule-making to implementation.
According to the briefing, GST-1 adopted at COP28 confirmed the world is off track in addressing climate change and called for a transition away from fossil fuels, a tripling of renewable energy capacity and a doubling of energy efficiency. COP29 later agreed on a new climate finance goal of at least $300 billion annually by 2035, a figure widely criticized by developing countries as insufficient compared with financing needs estimated in the trillions.
The paper notes that COP30 left several key issues unresolved, including adaptation finance, the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), Article 9.1 finance obligations, just transition, trade measures, Article 6 mechanisms and implementation of GST-1 outcomes. It says SB64 must turn these outstanding questions into operational pathways or risk losing momentum.
Adaptation is identified as one of the most politically sensitive and technically complex issues on the agenda. While COP30 advanced discussions through the Belém Adaptation Indicators, the Baku Adaptation Roadmap (BAR) and the Belém-Addis Vision, the briefing highlights a major financing gap.
International adaptation finance reached only $32 billion in 2024 against estimated annual needs of $310 billion to $365 billion by 2030. The paper calls on developed countries to commit to at least tripling adaptation finance by 2035, primarily through public grant-based funding, and to agree on a credible delivery plan.
It also urges countries to clarify how the BAR will operationalize means of implementation, particularly adaptation finance, to support the implementation of GGA indicators. The operating entities, including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Adaptation Fund (AF), should support developing countries in meeting GGA targets, the paper says.
The briefing further calls for agreement on workshop themes and participation modalities under the BAR, with a focus on increasing adaptation finance and improving coherence across adaptation mechanisms. It also stresses the need for an inclusive and rights-based Belém-Addis Vision task force that can test indicators, address methodological gaps and ensure they help unlock support rather than simply measure vulnerability.
On mitigation, the paper notes that the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP), established under CMA3 to accelerate climate action during the current decade, has so far remained largely limited to dialogue. It argues that SB64 should transform the MWP into a delivery-oriented mechanism with sector-specific outcomes for hard-to-abate industries and stronger links to nationally determined contributions (NDCs), GST implementation and just transition strategies.
The briefing also says the UAE Dialogue and annual NDC-GST Dialogue should identify financing gaps, transition pathways, barriers and concrete actions needed to implement GST-1 outcomes.
Loss and damage remains a central measure of climate justice, the paper says. Although the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) was established with considerable optimism, only a small fraction of the required resources has been pledged or delivered.
The paper calls for significantly greater contributions to the fund at a scale that reflects growing loss and damage needs. It also warns that following the conclusion of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) review at COP30, loss and damage no longer has a dedicated agenda item.
To address that concern, it recommends creating a permanent COP agenda item on loss and damage and ensuring that a planned Regular Loss and Damage Report covers financing needs, non-economic losses, human rights impacts, disaggregated vulnerability data and assessments of the fund’s adequacy.
On climate finance, Article 9 and Article 2.1(c), the paper highlights the two-year work programme launched at COP30. It argues that discussions should not weaken developed countries’ obligations to provide finance by shifting the focus toward private-sector mobilization.
The work programme, it says, should clarify how the $300 billion New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) will be delivered, determine the share of public finance and explain how adaptation, loss and damage and just transition activities will be funded. It should also distinguish between finance provision under Article 9.1 and mobilization under Article 9.3.
The paper further urges SB64 to operationalize the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap by identifying actions for 2026-2028, including multilateral development bank reform, debt-climate instruments, simplified access procedures, fiscal-space measures and transparency tools.
While welcoming discussions under the Veredas Dialogue on Article 2.1(c), the briefing says these talks must address debt, taxation and trade inequities without replacing obligations under Article 9. It also calls for fossil-fuel subsidy reforms that protect vulnerable populations.
On just transition, the paper points to momentum generated by COP30 through the establishment of the Belém-Antalya Mechanism (BAM), describing it as a potentially transformative development in climate governance.
It says SB64 should define the mechanism’s structure, scope and functions while aligning it with COP30 principles and GST-1 commitments, including transitioning away from fossil fuels, transforming industry and transport systems, eliminating deforestation and restoring ecosystems. The mechanism should also be capable of mobilizing resources for national and sectoral just transition strategies.
The briefing emphasizes the inclusion of workers, women, Indigenous Peoples, frontline communities and other affected groups in the governance of BAM, alongside meaningful discussions on financing.
Regarding Article 6, the paper notes that progress achieved at COP29 has shifted attention toward implementation. It calls for a fair and predictable funding arrangement for Article 6.2 infrastructure and capacity-building support to reduce participation gaps among countries.
The paper also recommends closer scrutiny of baseline setting, additionality, non-permanence, stakeholder participation and environmental integrity to ensure Article 6.2 strengthens rather than undermines NDC ambition.
A formal review of the Article 6.8 Work Programme on Non-Market Approaches (NMAs) is scheduled for this year, making SB64 a crucial moment for determining the scope, governance, funding arrangements and links between NMAs and UNFCCC financial mechanisms.
Trade measures are another emerging issue. The briefing notes that COP30’s Mutirão text formally recognized the links between climate policy and trade and mandated three climate-and-trade dialogues between 2026 and 2028, with the first taking place at SB64.
The paper says these discussions should focus on the risks faced by developing countries whose exports, industries and small producers may be affected by climate-related trade standards. Areas requiring examination include data requirements, technological access, capacity needs, revenue recycling, transparency and support for affected sectors.
It also calls for discussions on how trade measures interact with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), equity, sustainable development and the right to development.
On gender, the briefing highlights renewed political momentum following the adoption of the Belém Gender Action Plan at COP30 and plans for an expert dialogue at SB64 on gender- and age-disaggregated data.
It recommends integrating gender analysis into NDCs, National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), loss and damage assessments, just transition strategies and climate finance projects. It also calls for direct funding for women-led organizations and full, equal and meaningful participation of women and girls in climate decision-making processes.
The paper concludes that while SB64 alone will not determine the future of the Paris Agreement, its outcomes will strongly influence whether COP31 can move forward with mature draft decisions or remain burdened by unresolved disputes.
“The real test is whether Bonn can convert the promises of Dubai, Baku and Belém into operational pathways,” the paper states, citing the need for accessible climate finance, effective adaptation systems, credible indicators, high-integrity carbon markets and people-centered transitions.
