After a COP that took stock of the Paris Agreement, perhaps everyone thought that this is the moment of maturity for the process, to learn from mistakes, to propose improvements and adjust course. But climate multilateralism is far more complex than that. The truth is that we are getting very close to the "moment of truth" for the UNFCCC regime. Having overcome the initial phases of consensus on the easy regulatory issues of the Paris Agreement, now the really difficult questions remain. Now is the time to bring numbers to the table and to say where climate finance will come from. It is time to dissect and structure the adaptation needs of developing countries, and to clarify how the perspectives of justice and equity will be operationalized in the climate transition of vulnerable countries, communities and groups. And, of course, it is time to explain how that transition away from fossil fuels will be implemented. To avoid these conversations, anything goes, from criticizing the facilitators of the meetings and delegitimizing the process to threatening to block the negotiation, preventing any minutes of the discussions from being adopted. The 2024 Bonn Conference (SB 60) had all these ingredients and showed that the 194 countries of the Paris Agreement are not ready for the difficult conversations needed to effectively address the climate crisis. It has already given a bitter taste of the challenges that remain for COP 29 in Baku.

1. Global Stocktake (GST)

The GST was the subject of two items on the agenda of the Bonn negotiations.

The first point concerns improving the GST process based on the experience gained in the 1st Global Review of the Paris Agreement, as determined in Decision 1/CMA.5, paragraph 192. Consultations were conducted, resulting in a non-consensual informal note containing the Parties' views on possible information and elements to be considered in the next GST, such as sources of inputs, technical assessment components, among others. Among the points of divergence, the linking of the GST process to the IPCC's reporting and conclusions cycle stands out. Discussions will resume based on this informal note at SB 61.

The second item on the agenda aimed to develop the modalities for the “ United Arab Emirates Dialogue ” ( UAE Dialogue ) on the implementation of the results of the 1st Global Assessment of the Paris Agreement. As the name suggests, this is a process that appears to aim to monitor the implementation of the GST decision in all its elements, including aspects of energy transition, mitigation, adaptation, and others. The “UAE Dialogue” should be operationalized from COP 29 and should be concluded by COP 33 in 2028. This could be a space for difficult conversations about how to operationalize the “transition away from fossil fuels” and other sensitive elements of the 1st GST decision. During the Bonn Conference, there was disagreement among countries regarding linking the Dialogue to discussions on climate finance and the implementation of nationally determined contributions. The SBI took note of the discussions among the Parties so that considerations on the topic can be continued at SB 61 in November 2024. The possibility will also be opened for the submission of views on the modalities of the Dialogue.

2. Adaptation

Adaptation was the focus of at least four agenda items, but the biggest highlight was undoubtedly the discussions surrounding the Global Goal on Adaptation ( GGA ).

Following the adoption of the “United Arab Emirates Framework for Global Climate Resilience” at COP 28, the objective in Bonn was to launch the so-called UAE-Belém Work Programme, a two-year program that will define the indicators to measure progress in implementing the Framework. Discussions addressed criteria and procedural aspects of how to conduct the mapping of existing and relevant indicators to measure progress towards adaptation targets. The Parties arrived at the final day of the Conference still engaged in intense debates, struggling to reach a consensus. But the extra hours in the negotiating room yielded results. The meeting's closing minutes acknowledged that funding is crucial for the implementation of the Framework, and established a process and criteria for better mapping these indicators, including through the recruitment of experts and the holding of dialogues and workshops. The meeting minutes also noted the discussions between the parties during the session, which will be resumed at COP 29.

3. Financing

At the Bonn Conference, the topic of climate finance was not on the formal agenda, but it was discussed in other meetings mandated by previous COP decisions.

One of these meetings was the 10th edition of the Expert Technical Dialogues (TED), in which several proposals were made regarding the potential content of the New Collective Quantified Climate Finance Target (NCQG), including elements of ambition, qualitative elements, its structure, and the transparency of the target.

But the atmosphere really heated up at the 2nd Meeting of the NCQG Ad Hoc Work Programme, which aimed to advance the scope and wording of the NCQG decision to be adopted at COP 29. In this sense, there was no significant progress. This was the first opportunity the Parties had to discuss a proposed decision text, drafted by the co-facilitators. The document received a barrage of criticism, whether for its length, alleged redundancy, duplication of content, contradiction to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, and approach beyond the defined mandate of the NCQG. A major point of frustration was the lack of a "quantum" of the target that should be "quantified": developing countries expressed frustration with the stance of developed countries, which had not presented any value proposition for the NCQG and preferred to focus the discussion on the need to broaden the base of contributing countries to the target. Other disagreements arose regarding the composition of the target by private resources. However, it must be acknowledged that there were some points of convergence, such as the need for easier access to climate finance, the use of the transparency framework of the Paris Agreement (ETF), including through Article 9.5, and the need for its improvement for the purpose of monitoring the achievement of the target. A summary will be published with information on the progress of the meeting. The text will be discussed again by the Parties at the 3rd Meeting of the NCQG Ad Hoc Work Programme.

4. Carbon market

Following the collapse of carbon market negotiations at COP 28, there was much anticipation for the resumption of the issue this year. Since no decision was reached regarding Articles 6.2 and 6.4 at COP 28, these discussions would not, strictly speaking, have a very clear starting point in Bonn. Given this, the chair of the session of the subsidiary body where the negotiations took place – the SBSTA – took the initiative to hold informal consultations with the Parties and draft an informal decision text, which the Parties agreed to use as the basis for negotiations. The spirit in the negotiating room was clearly one of greater willingness and fear of repeating last year's catastrophe, but this did not translate into practice in the final text.

In the case of Article 6.2 (referring to Internationally Transferred Mitigation Results – “ITMOs” ), however, this base text grew throughout the negotiation, when it should have been streamlined. The main disagreements that led to the failure of the Dubai negotiations could not be overcome, and the Parties returned to their hardline positions. While some countries advocate a more centralized and rigorous structure, others believe that the system should be more decentralized and flexible. Basic discussions remain unresolved, such as the definition of “cooperative approaches” – and even the need for a definition or even a discussion about the definition. In other words, there is no consensus on the very scope of what Article 6.2 is. But there has been progress on at least two points within the vast list of topics under discussion: the definition of common nomenclatures to be used in the registration of ITMOs and the modalities for reviewing confidential information reported by the parties. Another point decided was that only from 2028 onwards will the parties discuss the possibility of issuing ITMOs from "avoided emissions" activities. However, this was not without considerable discomfort from countries that feared there might be some interpretation that this prevents the issuance of ITMOs from reduction and removal activities already defined in the rules of Article 6.2. This is all due to the lack of definition of what these "avoided emissions" are, and the fear that this concept might be confused with the concept of removal and reduction activities.

Regarding Article 6.4 (which establishes a certification mechanism for GHG mitigation units), the agenda was much less challenging, mainly because many aspects of the mechanism's operation are being handled by the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body (SBM ). The SBM is still developing aspects of its operation that will be submitted directly to COP 29. However, discussions addressed possible additional guidance for the SBM, including regarding the transition of CDM projects related to reforestation activities to the Article 6.4 mechanism. Another impasse in the negotiating rooms was the possibility of future transformation of Mitigation Contribution Units (MCUs) into ITMOs. MCUs are units for reducing unauthorized emissions for the purpose of fulfilling NDCs or for other international mitigation purposes. In other words, these are carbon credits that do not go through the infamous "corresponding adjustments," and which could be issued by countries for internal use in their domestic carbon markets (or for voluntary carbon markets, as some advocate). Some countries have defended the possibility of future conversion of these credits into ITMOs, probably as a way to mitigate the risk of premature ITMO issuance, that is, issuing ITMOs that would later be necessary for the country to meet its NDC.

Regarding the negotiations for Article 6.8 (which deals with cooperation between countries to achieve their climate mitigation and adaptation goals through non-market approaches (“NMAs”), the new development is the launch of the online platform for registering and sharing information on NMAs ( “NMA Platform” ). It was noted that 52 focal points had already been identified, and a user manual for the platform was also released. Discussions on Article 6.8 take place within the Glasgow Committee on Non-market Approaches and include workshops and spin-off groups at each session. At this session in Bonn, a workshop was held where parties and organizations made presentations on financing, technology, and capacity building for the identification and development of NMAs, in addition to spin-off groups in which parties discussed the next steps of the work program for the implementation of Article 6.8, including aspects of the involvement of indigenous peoples and traditional communities.

5. Mitigation

The topic of mitigation was included on the Bonn agenda following discussions on the Sharm el Sheikh Mitigation and Ambition Work Programme (MWP). Despite the importance of the topic, there is enormous disagreement among countries regarding the mandate, that is, what exactly they should discuss in this work programme. It's worth remembering that the MWP had already been significantly weakened at COP28, where it was expected to be enshrined as a process to increase the ambition of the NDCs by 2030. The result was a programme for the "exchange of experiences" on mitigation among countries through workshops. However, in Bonn, questions were raised about how to incorporate the GST results on the topic of mitigation within the MWP. There was strong opposition from two blocs – the Arab Group and the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group – which did not even allow the minutes of the meeting to be adopted, as the content of the minutes and discussions would be outside the mandate of the MWP – including a possible integration of the GST results into the future planning of the MWP and the potential role of the MWP in assisting the preparation of new NDCs. Due to such a divergence, the so-called "Rule 16" of the UNFCCC's internal regulations was applied, meaning that the agenda item will be restarted from scratch at the next session in Baku, completely ignoring the discussions that took place in Bonn.

6. Just Transition

COP28, with great difficulty, managed to establish the “United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme,” and the resumption of the program in Bonn was marked by the same unresolved disagreements as in Dubai. While groups from developed countries wanted to keep the scope of the program restricted to impacts on workers and focused on mitigation targets, groups from developing countries advocated for a broader and more inclusive approach, and the development of a work plan for the program, including the need to provide for just transition funding. Despite this, at the last minute the Parties agreed to proceed with the discussions based on a text that captured the meeting notes. The text highlights the importance of approaches to just transition that are appropriate to national circumstances, and contains references to the role of human rights, gender equality, decent work, labor rights, and broad stakeholder engagement, including affected workers, vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants and internally displaced persons, children, youth, and people with disabilities, in shaping pathways for just, effective, inclusive, and participatory transitions. It also mentions the barriers faced by developing countries and the importance of providing means of implementation such as financing, capacity building, and technology transfer to promote sustainable development and poverty eradication in the context of decarbonization.

7. Losses and damages

The topic of loss and damage was the subject of a single agenda item in Bonn this year, specifically to discuss the terms of reference for the review of the work of the Warsaw International Mechanism ( “WIM” ), which became known as the implementing arm of the loss and damage agenda at the UNFCCC. The parties decided to forward a draft Terms of Reference to COP 29. They also tasked the UNFCCC Secretariat with preparing a report to inform this review process, covering data on the WIM’s relevant decisions and mandates, its institutional arrangements, the progress of the implementation of the WIM Executive Committee’s work plan, as well as the status of the operationalization of the Santiago Network and the results of the 1st GST.

In addition to this negotiation agenda, Bonn also hosted the 3rd and final round of the Glasgow Dialogue. Among the issues discussed, the need to increase the coherence and coordination of efforts related to loss and damage, the insufficiency of resources, and above all the need to clearly incorporate the topic into the NCQG (New Common Market Questionnaire) stood out. Despite the more forceful discussions about including loss and damage within the scope of the NCQG, the topic seems to have lost some traction after the creation and operationalization of the " Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage ".

8. Transparency

The topic of transparency is especially relevant this year, as the deadline for submitting the first Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) under the Paris Agreement expires in December 2024.

However, in Bonn, the negotiation agenda also addressed the transparency instruments of the Convention, which will be replaced by those of the Paris Agreement. Among the issues discussed, the provision of financial support to developing countries to prepare their transparency reports stands out. Developing countries require a more adequate and continuous flow of resources to enable the preparation of these documents on time and more efficiently. This discussion resulted in a draft decision to be considered at COP 29, which emphasizes the importance of simplifying the procedures of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and exploring alternative modalities to facilitate access to financial resources. The text also recognizes the ongoing challenges faced by developing countries and calls for additional and continuous support to sustainably improve their institutional and technical capacities.

Regarding the transparency mechanism of the Paris Agreement, an agenda item was set to discuss methodological aspects of using the reporting tools prepared by the UNFCCC Secretariat. Following the discussions, the Parties welcomed the trial version of the electronic reporting tools in the common table and chart formats. They also agreed to organize workshops to demonstrate the functions of these tools to national experts. The tools will be available by the end of June 2024, with some functionalities still under development. They further highlighted the importance of training and technical support for developing countries, especially those least equipped and most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and encouraged the Secretariat to make reporting tools available in all official United Nations languages and to inform national focal points about training activities.