Sections

MENU

Social Channels

SEARCH ARCHIVE

  • Type

  • Topic

  • Date Range

    • From:
    • To:

  • Sort

Civil society demonstrations on loss and damage at Bonn climate talks
Civil society demonstrations on loss and damage at Bonn climate talks. Credit: Photo by IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth.
UN CLIMATE TALKS
20 June 2022 17:02

Bonn climate talks: Key outcomes from the June 2022 UN climate conference

Multiple Authors

06.20.22

Multiple Authors

20.06.2022 | 5:02pm
UN climate talksBonn climate talks: Key outcomes from the June 2022 UN climate conference

With a global energy crisis, food shortages and war in Ukraine looming in the background, negotiators gathered in the German city of Bonn for a new round of UN climate talks.

It marked the first time they had met since the Paris Agreement’s “rulebook” was finally brought to a close at COP26 in Glasgow, clearing the way for a new era of climate action.

In practice, negotiators quickly became bogged down in many of the same issues that have always plagued UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) events. 

Developed and developing countries clashed over who should pay for the damage caused by climate change, as well as who should make further cuts to their emissions in the coming decade. Vulnerable countries also fought to raise the issue of adaptation on the agenda, to help them better prepare for rising temperatures.

The 56th sessions of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) – referred to as SB56 – was meant to set the stage for the upcoming COP27 event in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

But there was a general lack of progress as countries failed to find compromises. In particular, developing countries were left frustrated after uniting around a new finance mechanism for “loss and damage” that was ultimately left off the agenda, following pushback by wealthy nations.

‘Together for implementation’

“Implementation” – or getting things done – was a major theme at the Bonn talks. And this is expected to continue at the next big climate summit COP27 in Egypt, where “together for implementation” is the official tagline. (Some have raised concerns that there is currently little clarity over what exactly parties should be focused on implementing.)

This follows on from years of talks which largely focused on sewing up the final sections of the Paris Agreement, the landmark climate deal aimed at keeping global warming well below 2C made by countries in 2015. The remaining and most contentious sections of the deal were finally agreed at COP26, the last major climate summit which took place in Glasgow in November 2021.

With the Paris Agreement finally wrapped up, negotiators are turning their attention towards how its text can be translated into real action.

However, in the six months since COP26, the world has had to grapple with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and escalating food and energy crises. In an interview at the sidelines of the talks, the outgoing UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa told Carbon Brief that these events are “affecting the way we can address climate change”.

Despite this, progress must continue, she said, adding the world is “still very far from where we need to be” in meeting the Paris goals.

But friction over Russia’s war did seep into negotiations. On the conference’s first day, delegates walked out of a session as a Russian official used his address to spread misinformation about the conflict in Ukraine.

Another defining issue of the Bonn talks was the continuing deep divide between developed and developing countries on many climate issues, ranging from loss and damage to how to best tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions (discussed in more detail below).

Espinosa told Carbon Brief that division between developed and developing countries remained a significant barrier to further climate progress. She said: 

“I think what we have seen here is again, on some issues, still the divide between developed and developing countries. And I do believe that, to properly address these issues, we need to overcome that divide.”

Observers raised concerns that many of the issues most pressing to vulnerable nations were discussed through dialogues or workshops rather than formal negotiations, which are the only forum able to issue decisions. (For example, loss and damage was discussed through the beginning of the Glasgow Dialogue, while the global goal on adaptation was addressed through a workshop.)

Outside of negotiating rooms, activists staged frequent protests on the themes of climate justice, loss and damage, and finance – which saw wealthier parties such as the EU, US and Switzerland called out for blocking the demands of poorer nations.

Anger and mistrust was fuelled further by issues over participation. Haneen Shahneen, a member of CAN Arab World, told a press conference that an estimated 40% of young activists who had been accredited to attend the Bonn talks did not receive a visa for travel.

At a press conference held during the first week, the Egyptian COP27 presidency tried to quell concerns that participation issues and rocketing hotel prices would blight negotiations in November.

In addition, the negotiations also offered a platform for parties to dissect and debate the most recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – with several workshops and events held to discuss the findings.

Raising ambition

An important focus of the talks in Bonn was what the Glasgow Climate Pact described as the “urgent need” for more ambitious emissions cuts in this “critical decade”, in order to avoid dangerous warming of more than 1.5C.

In the run up to COP26, most countries had met their obligations under the Paris Agreement by coming forward with new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – climate plans that lay out how they intend to curb emissions in line with the pact’s targets.

Despite this, and the UK COP26 presidency’s rallying cry to “keep 1.5C alive”, analysis of the latest round of NDCs and other pledges made in Glasgow suggested the planet is on track for around 2.4C of warming, even if those pledges are met in full.

(If countries additionally meet their pledges to reach net-zero emissions around mid-century, warming would be limited to an estimated 1.8C.) 

With the IPCC having said that emissions must be roughly halved by 2030 to meet the 1.5C target, it was clear at the time of COP26 that the latest round of pledges still fell short. Moreover, the next round of NDCs were not due to be submitted under the Paris “ratchet mechanism” until 2025, covering the period after 2030, meaning they would come too late to bring down emissions this decade.

The Glasgow Climate Pact therefore attempted to bridge two divides: between current ambition and what would be necessary for 1.5C; and between the timeline of required action this decade and the schedule of the Paris ratchet.

First, the pact issued a “request” that all countries “revisit and strengthen” their NDCs by the end of 2022.

So far, the only nation that has come forward with an enhanced NDC since the close of COP26 has been Australia, which recently elected a more climate-friendly Labor government. 

Second, the pact included language that emphasised the 1.5C target (below) and inserted a new “work programme” into future negotiations to “urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation”.

Glasgow Climate Pact text on 1.5 target and work programme

This programme, which takes place under both the SBSTA and SBI, is intended to both increase the ambition of existing pledges and enhance their real-world implementation. The Glasgow pact ensures the programme will remain on the formal negotiating agenda, requesting a decision be drafted and adopted at COP27.

While it has some similarities to the global stocktake, which is also concerned with gathering information to inform NDCs, this new programme focuses on improving the current round of pledges – covering the period to 2030 – rather than the next round, which are due by 2025 but will relate to emissions after 2030. Parties are expected to submit a draft decision text at COP27. 

The process of hashing out this new text got underway in Bonn, reflected in an “informal note” from the co-facilitators of the talks. This contained an extensive list of options covering everything from how long the work programme should last through to the institutions involved and the priority topics for it to cover. 

These details proved contentious and from the outset, there were highly divergent views on what the work programme would look like and achieve, with disputes between some of the world’s biggest emitters about who should take on the burden of tougher targets.

The initial informal note proposed that one outcome of the process could be “NDCs and concrete actions by major emitters with capabilities”. 

While this appears to be a straightforward idea, it goes to the heart of the UN process, which has always split countries into “developed” and “developing” according to their membership of the OECD in 1992, rather than emissions today. In addition, the 1992 UN framework convention on climate change calls on nations to act based on their “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.

This division places a greater onus on countries with historical responsibility for climate change, mainly the EU and the US. Large developing economies, meanwhile, such as China and India, are treated in the same group as small island nations, which have negligible emissions.

In Bonn, the US in particular fought for language about “major emitters” in order to see the likes of China take on greater responsibility before 2030 for cutting greenhouse gases. The Like Minded-Group of Developing Countries (LMDC), which includes China, India and Saudi Arabia, and the Arab Group strongly opposed this.

They argued that nations such as the US – responsible for more emissions overall than any other country – were ducking their historical responsibility for climate change. 

Diego Pacheco, lead negotiator for Bolivia and LMDC representative, explains their position to Carbon Brief:

“The narrative of having almost similar obligations among all parties, is moving [to] a new phase of colonialism in the world: carbon colonialism. Imposing hard obligations for developing countries, while giving enough flexibility and comfort to developed countries to achieve net-zero by 2050, and ignoring their historical responsibility [for] the climate crisis. In the meantime, developed countries will continue consuming the carbon space that belongs to developing countries.”

Ultimately, references to “major emitters” were scrubbed from a later version of the text that emerged towards the end of the conference. Broadly, the new text reflected the lack of agreement on many topics among the parties.

Another dispute was over the length of time that would be dedicated to the process, with options in the informal text for a programme running until 2030, or lasting just one year. China was among those calling for a one-year programme.

Other parties, notably the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), whose members favour rapid emissions cuts to avoid the impacts that threaten their island homes, pushed for a long-term initiative. Frances Fuller, who led on mitigation at the negotiations for AOSIS, told Carbon Brief:

“Well, sure, if everyone gets on the path to reducing emissions by at least 20% by 2025 through national policies and legislating the NDCs…maybe it’s not necessary to go to 2030.”

However, given the “broken promises” and “vast” gaps between pledges and implementation, she said it would be an injustice to restrict the length of the workshop.

Yet another area that saw heated debate was the question of sectoral targets. The EU pushed for the programme to focus on key areas of the economy, continuing a theme from COP26 that saw attention on areas such as coal phaseouts and ending deforestation.

However, developing country parties such as India pushed back against this, as they feared outcomes that would place additional burden on their economies. 

In the end, all of these nuances were largely lost as the short final text that emerged from the meeting deleted any reference to “tak[ing] note of” the informal note, meaning it may not be the basis for further dialogue.

“Come COP27 we’re essentially starting from a blank page,” Tom Evans, a researcher at thinktank at E3G who authored a recent paper on the mitigation work programme, tells Carbon Brief:

“It’s frustrating but at least there’s further dialogue, [which] means we can keep the conversation alive, start to address some of the valid concerns and questions the big developing countries have.”

A pre-session workshop on the programme will take place before COP27, with submissions from parties outlining their positions invited by 30 September.

In the meantime, Fuller tells Carbon Brief it is important that more parties come forward with revised NDCs by September, in time for a new “synthesis report” later this year.

Loss and damage

Though it has been raised at negotiations for more than 30 years, loss and damage is fast emerging as the most critical issue for many countries attending UN climate talks.

“Loss and damage” refers to how climate change is already causing serious impacts for people, from human deaths to loss of livelihoods and damage to homes. 

Under the UN climate process, developed countries have agreed to pledge funds to help developing nations tackle emissions and adapt to changing climate conditions. However, there is currently no financial aid available to specifically deal with loss and damage, explains Harjeet Singh, a senior advisor and loss and damage expert at Climate Action Network. He tells Carbon Brief:

“This system, the UNFCCC, has money if you want to put up solar panels, it has money if you want to retrofit your home (of course not enough), but it doesn’t have money when people are losing their homes. It’s a clear gap. When we talk about climate action, it’s also about people who are suffering now. Somebody who is drowning, we say: ‘We can’t help you now, but if you survive we may help you prepare for a future disaster.’”

Loss and damage can be caused by immediate climate impacts, such as more intense and frequent extreme weather events, as well as slow onset events such as sea level rise and glacial melt, adds Ineza Umuhoza Grace, a Rwandan activist and director of the Loss and Damage Youth Coalition (LDYC). She tells Carbon Brief:

“We are losing infrastructure, losing our agricultural land – and losing what we can call a hope of having sustainable economic growth and a future for everybody.”

At the last major climate summit, COP26, demands for a loss and damage finance facility were put forward by the G77 plus China, a negotiating group of countries representing six out of every seven people in the world.

However, this request was blocked by wealthier parties such as the EU and the US. Instead, parties agreed to the Glasgow Dialogue, a three-year set of discussions which began in Bonn.

(A small number of developed countries have shown support for loss and damage finance, with Scotland pledging £1m to address loss and damage at COP26 and New Zealand showing support for a funding facility this year in Bonn.)

Speaking at a side event at the Bonn talks attended by Carbon Brief, Ambassador Munir Nabeel, chair of the G77 plus China negotiating group, said:

“We just took it because it was a compromise and we thought it would be a foot in the door and a way to move forward. But that is way less than what we actually wanted.”

He added that, in both Glasgow and Bonn, the group of countries he represents had been “united” in their call for the establishment of a loss and damage finance facility. Commenting on the Glasgow Dialogue, he said:

“As it stands now, it’s just a talk shop – it’s nothing more than that. It doesn’t have a process, it doesn’t lead to anything. It doesn’t even have a report.”

Some observers expressed anger that the US – a historic blocker of actions to address loss and damage – had been given the role as co-facilitator of the Glasgow Dialogue, alongside Singapore.

Setting out its position on loss and damage finance in Bonn, a representative of the US argued that they “don’t believe this requires a new fund”, adding that countries must instead “increase [existing] funding and broaden the sources to non-traditional funders”.

But developing countries have argued that traditional funding sources, such as the Green Climate Fund, require lengthy applications and are too slow to pay out – making them inappropriate to deal with the aftermath of extreme weather events. In addition, humanitarian aid provided in response to extreme weather events has no way of dealing with slow onset events such as sea level rise. 

(The most recent assessment of climate impacts from the IPCC concludes that losses and damages from climate change are “not comprehensively assessed” by existing finance.)

At the side event attended by Carbon Brief, developing world representatives and civil society put forward their vision for how a loss and damage finance facility could work in practice.

They stressed that any financing must be “new and additional” to adaptation and mitigation money, and that careful monitoring was needed to make sure it reached communities in need. 

During the talks, developing countries tried to raise the likelihood of getting progress on loss and damage finance once more – this time by getting the Glasgow Dialogue on the official agenda for COP27.

Bolivia, acting on behalf of the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) bloc, sent a proposal to the chair of the SBI on 19 April, for the Glasgow Dialogue to be included in the agenda for Bonn.

And, at the talks, activists and developing world representatives repeatedly called for loss and damage to be included on the agenda for COP27.

However, the Bonn talks ended without the Glasgow Dialogue being added to the formal negotiating agenda. Speaking to Carbon Brief, Alpha Kaloga, lead on loss and damage for the African Group of Negotiators, says:

“The SBI chair will report on the Glasgow Dialogue, but not with a specific agenda item…That for us is disappointing given the urgency, the magnitude and the lack of response. The current system fail[s] to provide support to developing countries for loss and damage.”

He adds that his group is now aiming to get the Glasgow Dialogue on the agenda at COP27 “during the first days of Sharm el Sheikh”.

And, separately, the Climate Vulnerable Forum used their closing remarks at the Glasgow Dialogue in Bonn to call for COP27 to commission an IPCC special report specifically focused on loss and damage.

In addition to the Glasgow Dialogue, Bonn also saw countries discuss the Santiago Network, which aims to “catalyse technical assistance” on loss and damage.

However, countries made little advancement on the development of this network in Bonn, explains Sven Harmeling, international climate policy coordinator at CAN. He tells Carbon Brief:

“Parties are not really managing to move beyond some very technical questions on how to set up the network. We think it needs to be set up in a way where developing countries are given a strong steer, because they are the ones that need to be supported.”

Adaptation

Adapting to climate impacts was another key component of the SB56 talks, particularly progress on fleshing out a “global goal on adaptation” (GGA).

Adaptation has long been a priority for developing countries and the African Group in particular, as these nations are among those facing the worst impacts of climate change while frequently being the least equipped to deal with them.

They therefore want more money to help them prepare their societies for higher temperatures and more extreme weather events. At COP26, developed nations committed to doubling adaptation finance by 2025, attempting to make up for years of underfunding.

More broadly, developing countries also want more “balance” in the UN process, which they say has for years been primarily focused on getting countries to cut their emissions rather than prepare for climate impacts. 

The GGA was established – but not clearly defined – in the Paris Agreement. Article 7 of the agreement says the goal is “enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the context of the temperature goal [of limiting warming to well-below 2C and preferably 1.5C].”

Six years later, there has been little progress even in simply defining what the GGA means.

With this in mind, COP26 produced the Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh work programme on the global goal on adaptation, recognising the need for “additional work” to help nations measure and track adaptation. This is a two-year programme that will conclude at COP28.

Despite this work programme being established, as with the Glasgow dialogue on loss and damage it was not initially included on the formal agenda in Bonn. This prompted Bolivia, on behalf of the LMDCs, to request (see below) a separate agenda item for the GGA. Unlike the Glasgow dialogue, this request was accepted.

Glasgow Sharm el Sheikh work programme on adaptation

Carolina Cecilio, a policy advisor for risk and resilience at E3G, tells Carbon Brief that the inclusion of the GGA would be good news for COP27:

“Having it on the agenda sends a very strong signal on the importance of it and having the GGA as part of the official agenda of COP27…it will trigger political discussions.”

LMDC and Bolivian lead negotiator Diego Pacheco tells Carbon Brief that “including the GGA is a way to recognise that work must start regarding adaptation”. However, he adds that “the unbalance continues”, with more weight still being given to mitigation in negotiations.

Part of the difficulty around the GGA is establishing how to make it global, with the same political vision underpinning it as for mitigation in the UN climate process, while reflecting the large array of local approaches and needs involved in climate adaptation. 

“You have so many different challenges even within the same countries – it can’t be a one-size-fits-all solution,” says Cecilio.

Discussions of these topics began in Bonn with two technical workshops, and a text was produced under the agenda item to outline priorities for future workshops.

The first draft that emerged following the initial round of input from parties, based on an earlier proposal by the African Group, left many decisions still to be made.

On the last day of SB56, a final text was released that contained some of the issues developing countries and civil society groups had been pushing for.

Among these priorities are a focus on climate science, with the work of the IPCC and others being drawn into the process to help understand global risks and responses, and the importance of regional information being emphasised. 

Eddy Pérez, climate diplomacy lead for Climate Action Network Canada, tells Carbon Brief that the document would help make the process “about real adaptation action on the ground”. He added that these constitute “the best draft conclusions from this session”.

However, Mariam Allam, a negotiator for the African Group specialising in adaptation, tells Carbon Brief that she was disappointed that the outcome remained primarily procedural, given the years that it has taken to get to this point.

“It’s satisfactory, given the indication of the signals that we received in the beginning”, she says, noting the initial “exclusion” of the GGA from the agenda.

Delegates gather for the IPCC event under the Glasgow Sharm el Sheikh work programme at Bonn 2022
Delegates gather for the IPCC event under the Glasgow Sharm el Sheikh work programme at Bonn 2022. Credit: Photo by IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth.

However, she compares the text unfavourably to the lengthy informal note prepared by the SB co-facilitators for the mitigation work programme, which captured a range of ideas that had been brought forward by parties in the session. 

While that note was not formally recognised in the final text (see: Raising ambition), Allam states that after six years had passed since the Paris deal, a similar outcome with more “actual substance” should have been achieved for the GGA.

Meanwhile, various other workstreams at SB56 also touched on adaptation, including those addressing national adaptation plans, the Nairobi work programme and discussions of the “share of proceeds” from carbon markets that will go towards supporting developing countries’ adaptation action with finance.

Negotiations around the Adaptation Fund were the scene of some controversy as the US queried the fund’s focus on exclusively grant-based finance.

The UN’s Adaptation Fund is seen as important because it has allowed developing countries to access finance for adaptation, something that is in relatively short supply.

Grants are widely seen as the most effective way to support adaptation projects, which are designed to offer protection against climate impacts rather than to generate financial returns that could be used to pay back loan-based finance.

In the end, the US backed down and the final text includes a reference to “full-cost, grant-based finance”.

Going into COP27, observers told Carbon Brief there were hopes that the Egyptian presidency – which has long aligned itself with groups prioritising adaptation – would make the event not only an “African COP” but also an “adaptation COP”.

Climate finance

The eternal challenge of providing money to address climate change – or, specifically, persuading developed nations to do so – was a key feature of the talks in Bonn.

It hung over every aspect of the negotiations, particularly around loss and damage and adaptation, both of which are seen as significantly underfunded. As Eddy Pérez, climate diplomacy lead for Climate Action Network Canada, tells Carbon Brief:

“Climate finance was everywhere in this session. In the agenda, very small items covered climate finance, but all discussion led to [it]”

The Egyptian presidency has made it clear that COP27 will prioritise finance. This could include a focus on the Glasgow pledge to at least double adaptation funds, a particular issue for the African nations that already spend large amounts of money on climate adaptation.

In Bonn, the main finance-specific event was a “technical expert dialogue” concerning the “new collective quantified” goal on climate finance. This was the second such dialogue, with the first having taken place in Cape Town the previous month.

This post-2025 goal was mentioned in the Paris Agreement and at COP24 in Katowice, Poland, parties agreed to begin discussing it at COP26. 

It will ultimately replace the current $100bn annual target that developed countries were meant to have reached by 2020 – a target they are still yet to meet.

Expert analysis direct to your inbox.

Get a round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email. Find out more about our newsletters here.

Zaheer Fakir, a South African climate negotiator and co-chair of the UNFCCC’s Standing Committee on Finance, told a side event on the second day of the Bonn talks that it was within this “context of failure” that they are now embarking on a discussion of the new finance goal.

He noted that the $100bn was initially put forward back in 2009 as a “sexy figure”, rather than one resulting from a careful assessment of people’s needs. Estimates by developing countries suggest that trillions of dollars will be needed to help them tackle climate change, rather than the billions currently on offer.

Meanwhile, the developed countries that are obliged to provide climate finance have been enthusiastic about expanding the pool of contributors to include wealthy emerging economies, as well as encouraging input from the private sector, to ease their burden.

Fakir noted that the dialogue around the new goal had so far failed to meet the urgency of the situation:

“Unfortunately, what is happening in the discussion now, nobody is talking about what an ambitious quantified goal would be, and everybody’s talking about everything else.”

Up for discussion are issues such as the timelines over which finance is given, whether it encompasses issues such as loss and damage and how accessible it is for those in need.

Delegates huddle during the contact group on the Global Stocktake
Delegates huddle during the contact group on the Global Stocktake. Credit: Photo by IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth.

The dialogue, spread over two sessions at Bonn, included talks from experts including authors of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s sixth assessment report concluded that, for mitigation alone, annual climate finance flows have to increase by between three and six times to meet average annual needs up to 2030 to limit warming to below 2C.

It also included a presentation from the Standing Committee on Finance on its needs determination report, which arrived at a figure of between $5-11tn. The committee noted that this is based on developing countries working out the cost of just 30% of their overall needs.

Preety Bhandari, a climate finance expert at the World Resources Institute (WRI), told a press conference in the final week:

“Of course these are large numbers, and the idea is not to create a scare around them but to create an understanding that this is the level of ambition that a group of countries are looking for when talking about the new finance goal.”

Two more technical expert dialogues will take place, one before COP27 and one during the event.

Meanwhile, Germany, the new president of the G7, and COP26 president the UK were both involved in an “energy transition partnership”, which they say will provide financial assistance to help South Africa move away from coal. There are expectations that this method of mobilising finance could be repeated in the coming months.

Carbon Brief understands that Indonesia, Vietnam and Senegal are among the potential partner nations for such deals.

Global stocktake and other topics

The event saw the first “technical dialogue” under the first global stocktake, the process by which nations monitor climate action to assess whether they are, collectively, on course to hit the Paris Agreement goals.

Ultimately, the stocktake will come to a close in 2023 and its outcomes will inform the next round of climate pledges, or NDCs, which are due in 2025.

The dialogue in Bonn provided a forum in which national representatives, civil society groups and climate experts could exchange views under the three main themes of mitigation, adaptation and “means of implementation and support” – in other words finance.

“We were trying to give an input into what the global stocktake will essentially take stock of,” Marcin Kowalczyk of WWF Poland, who contributed to the climate finance discussions, explains to Carbon Brief.

These discussions, together with further submissions, will feed into a summary report prepared by the co-facilitators of the process.

Participants welcomed a “world cafe” format on top of the more formal roundtable discussions and plenary meetings, which they said helped to make the process more interactive and inclusive.

The dialogue provided space to discuss the latest findings from the IPCC’s sixth assessment report, the third instalment of which was released in April. It also provided an opportunity for developing countries to push for the inclusion of loss and damage in the stocktake.

Bonn saw various other negotiations continue, including work to get international carbon markets up and running after the rulebook underpinning Article 6 of the Paris Agreement was finally decided at COP26. After years of deadlock on this issue, the Bonn talks saw parties agree to undertake more intersessional work in this area.

Additional work streams included those focusing on the gender action plan, the Koronivia joint work on agriculture and Action for Climate Empowerment, which focuses on public involvement in climate action.

Road to COP27

While in theory the focus of climate negotiations has shifted to implementation, many of the outcomes from the SB sessions in Bonn were restricted to procedural matters rather than concrete actions. 

This leaves a lot of pressure on the Egyptian presidency going into COP27, as it will have to work hard in the coming months to set out a clear vision for what can be achieved.

Much was made among delegates in Bonn of the upcoming event being an “African COP”, making it a suitable venue to address some of the biggest issues concerning African nations, including adaptation and access to climate finance. 

Further intersessional events and submissions by parties could help to lay the groundwork before delegates head to Sharm el-Sheikh. 

With loss and damage finance still not added to the formal agenda, but clearly established as a priority issue for developing countries, it is likely to re-emerge during the opening plenary of COP27.

Several events in the coming months, including the Petersberg Dialogue, co-hosted by G7 president Germany and COP27 president Egypt, and a pre-COP event set to take place in the Democratic Republic of Congo, provide venues to develop these issues prior to the main event in November.

Date Event 
25 June - 3 July 2022London Climate Action Week 2022
TBCPetersberg Climate Dialogue
26-28 June 2022G7 Summit in Schloss Elmau, Germany
21-23 September 2022Clean Energy Ministerial, Pittsburgh, US
19-25 September 2022New York Climate Week 2022
13-27 September 2022UN General Assembly (UNGA77)
15-16 November 2022G20 summit, Bali, Indonesia
TBCPre-COP27, Democratic Republic of the Congo
“In advance of” COP27 Parties that have not done so “urged” to submit “new or updated” NDCs
7-18 November 2022COP27, Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt
7-18 November 2022UNFCCC to publish an updated NDC synthesis report
7-18 November 2022High-level ministerial round table on “pre-2030 ambition” at COP27
By the end of 2022Parties “requested” to revisit and strengthen the 2030 climate targets
6-17 November 2023COP28, United Arab Emirates
Sharelines from this story
  • Bonn climate talks: Key outcomes from the June 2022 UN climate conference
Comments
View Comments (0) Close Comments

Expert analysis direct to your inbox.

Get a round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email. Find out more about our newsletters here.