In June, most of the CAMAMAZON project team travelled to Bonn for the 62nd meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or SB62. In this blog, Matthaeus, Hannah, Veronica and Cristina reflect on their experience.
Matthaeus
I attended SB62 with three main objectives: to reflect on the topic of my master’s thesis, to write, and to closely follow the preparations led by the COP30 presidency. I also wanted to understand, in practice, how an SB62 session works within the context of the UNFCCC.
For seven days in Bonn, I followed key topics, including just transition, gender issues, and discussions related to the IPCC. Being present in these spaces helped me better grasp the dynamics of international negotiations and the various stakeholders involved. On the topic of gender, for instance, I heard ideas from several countries, each with its perspective. It was insightful to witness how the negotiation gradually moved towards more inclusive proposals. Unfortunately, this discussion concluded without a final agreement and was scheduled to continue the following week, after I had already left.
Outside the official UNFCCC venue, one of the highlights of my experience was getting involved in the Climate Camp—an alternative and welcoming space where I connected with youth climate activists from around the world. I participated in workshops led by Marcele Oliveira (President of Youth Climate Champion) on collective action, called Multirão, exchanged experiences with many people, and, as a bonus, enjoyed free meals every day. It was a space of connection, resistance, and learning.
Additionally, I had the honour of speaking personally with Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, President of COP30, and Ana Toni, CEO of COP30. This meeting took place during a conversation between the COP30 presidency and representatives from civil society. I was genuinely impressed by the openness and willingness of the presidency to engage in dialogue. I am unsure whether other COP presidencies have engaged as directly with their civil societies. One statement that stayed with me was about an initiative led by Sonia Guajajara, Brazil’s Minister of Indigenous Peoples, who is training young Indigenous leaders to participate in COP30, aiming to bring greater inclusion to the negotiations, both nationally and internationally.
I believe Brazil has all the potential to play a leading role at COP30, especially as the host country. The actions taken so far are only small steps, but they offer valuable glimmers of hope. SB62 proved really helpful in focusing the topic of my dissertation in this regard, as I decided to analyse Brazil’s climate leadership.
Hannah
My main goal at SB62 was for us as a project to begin to develop a collective way of working in the lead up to COP30. There are two elements to this. First, what do we follow in the negotiations that will give us a window into the presidency and the different actor groups that we are focused on, including Indigenous peoples, youth and science? And second, to what extent do we need a shared way of working and framework to guide our observation and analysis? Thinking in terms of agreement-making provides us with a particular way to think about negotiations, but there is more conceptual work to do to identify what we collectively attune ourselves to as a project team and the underpinning logic of this. One of the things that I had been working on in preparation was a table of different knowledges. I wanted to try out a new way of note taking that aims to capture these different ways of knowing and to test whether this approach might be a useful tool for becoming aware of and recording the different worlds that intersect and are constitutive of these events.
The second issue is what to follow. This question is never far from my mind at any of these events. It can take a lot of energy to quieten the niggling doubt and need to be somewhere else, observing something different. However, I find that once I’m in a room, absorbed in the negotiation, this doubt quietens. This time it was made easier by the 4th COP30 presidency letter identifying the centrality of the Global Stocktake (GST) to Brazil’s vision for COP30. The GST is a five-yearly review mechanism created in the Paris Agreement for collectively taking stock of the implementation of the agreement and progress towards meeting the long-term temperature goal. As such, the GST is both critical for collectively reviewing progress and for increasing ambition over time. The outcome of each global stocktake is designed to “inform Parties in updating and enhancing” their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and “enhancing international cooperation for climate action.” Importantly, this measuring exercise is anchored in and to the “best available science”, including IPCC reports, which provides the yardstick to measure progress and increase ambition.
I’ve been following the Global Stocktake (GST) since COP27. The current focus of negotiations relevant to the GST is on determining the impact and follow up on the first GST and the negotiation of the modalities for the second GST. Neither of these items were concluded in Bonn, which means in Belém, negotiation will continue, as the negotiators find ways to bridge large differences on what content and through what process to follow up on GST outcomes. While the EU, UK, Australia etc. want to avoid a focus on finance; China, India, Saudi Arabia, amongst others, want reassurance that action remains nationally determined and that no mechanism materialises for individual naming and shaming. As the draft conclusions of the Research and Systematic Observation negotiations highlight, and as is apparent to observers, the science informing and underpinning the GST is also a central site of struggle, as governments seek to identify and/or obscure the science that has the potential to alleviate or apply further pressure on nationally determined responses and collective assessment of this.
But like Matthaeus, for me too, one of the most enjoyable aspects of Bonn was the Climate Camp. One of the central aims of the CAMAMAZON project is to facilitate greater understanding and participation in COP processes as a central site of climate agreement-making. The climate camp definitely contributes to this goal by creating a meeting point between activists, researchers and those passing by and initiating conversation and knowledge exchange about climate action. I was particularly grateful to the organisers of the workshop that aimed to identify strategies for enhancing participation in the global stocktake and the half-time reporting workshop on negotiations so far, as observed by young civil society activists. These provided the ideal forum for sharing insights and testing thoughts on what the process is and could be about.
Veronica
It was my first time participating in the so-called “June Climate Meetings” of the UNFCCC. I arrived with the aim of understanding, in practice, how these sessions work — after all, it is here that the agendas to be discussed at COP30 begin to take shape. I set two main focuses for my participation.
The first was to closely follow the movements of the COP30 Presidency. I wanted to understand their priorities, strategies, and how they were organizing themselves behind the scenes. In this process, I listened to and engaged with actors from civil society, government representatives, and diplomats.
The second focus was to delve into the agenda around just transition. I tried to understand how this theme — so essential, yet still contested — is being addressed. What exactly is meant by “transition”? Where are the points of convergence, and where do disagreements continue to hinder the establishment of an action plan and a global mechanism (or some other institutional format) for a just transition?
It was an intense two weeks. The schedule was packed, and the backdrop was impossible to ignore. The atmosphere was marked by tensions — Israel’s attacks on Gaza, the war in Ukraine, the Israel–US–Iran conflict — which were not explicitly mentioned in the speeches, but could be felt in the air, in the posters, and in the voices of civil society protesters outside. And it was precisely these movements and organisations that helped remind us of the purpose behind it all. Amid diplomatic deadlocks, they insisted on the centrality of climate justice. They demanded that the voices of territories and impacted communities be truly heard. They reminded us that justice is not possible without ending fossil fuel exploitation and confronting inequality.
Inside the negotiation rooms, silences also spoke volumes. The reluctance of several countries to acknowledge that a just transition must indeed go beyond fossil fuels. The hesitation of developed nations to commit the resources needed to make this transition fair. I followed some of the efforts of the COP30 Presidency to try to find viable paths in the face of these structural and political constraints.
In addition, since Baku, I have been learning about the politics of badges. Your badge determines where you can — or cannot — go. But there are grey areas: moments when negotiators decide observers must leave the room, and those with “observer” badges are asked to step out. Or when you hold a “party overflow” badge and are either denied entry or required to leave due to room capacity. This left me with a sense of insecurity — a constant uncertainty about my right to be there. A fear of, at any moment, being prevented from following the discussions.
Attending SB62 enabled me to understand better the challenges and potential developments in the lead-up to COP30. It also led me to reflect on the limitations of this space in terms of meaningful participation.
Cristina
I have never attended a Climate COP, and only once followed the negotiations in Bonn, many years ago. The main focus of my research has not been so much on the negotiations of international principles, norms, and rules, but rather on public policies and the mechanisms of international cooperation (funds, technical assistance/Official Development Assistance or ODA) that emerge for their implementation, and how these are reflected locally — in other words, how national and local actors perceive and act upon them. Furthermore, I consider myself more of a biodiversity and forests person than a climate one. So, I went to Bonn with a more “exploratory” attitude, aiming to understand finance-related issues, particularly those concerning forests, and to observe how climate agenda matters have been connected to biodiversity and forests.
Since I only arrived on Saturday, 21st June, I didn’t follow the negotiation agenda, but I soon learned that issues related to financing commitments would not be on the table. I was able to attend several side events, including one with Minister Sônia Guajajara from the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples, who reaffirmed some key positions, such as the demand for direct funding and simplified mechanisms for Indigenous Peoples. What was new to me was the emphasis on biodiversity–climate synergies, and the announcement that they would be carrying out an inventory of ongoing actions within Indigenous Territories. Another side event was about the TFFF (Tropical Forest Forever Facility), attended by Ambassador Lilian, which is likely to be launched at COP30 in Belém, but will be negotiated outside the framework of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. As it is set to be a financial investment fund, it was unclear to me whether the risk of deepening the financialisation and commodification of forests would be outweighed by the promise that part of the funding would be channelled directly to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. One key point will be the definition of “forests” and whether the cerrado will be included. Being a fixed-income fund, there will need to be guarantees that the resources are not used to finance activities with negative social and environmental impacts. The NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance) was something I would have liked to understand better or have seen discussed more — however, as mentioned, finance was not on Bonn’s negotiation agenda, and most of the discussions in side events appear to have taken place in the first week.
Beyond that, following the negotiations felt like watching a “stage” or a UN model simulation — I took notes and observed the countries in action. After so many years of multilateral negotiations, it was surprising to realise that, apparently, little has changed in terms of North–South dynamics, colonial attitudes, the refusal to use terms like “move away from fossil fuels”, and the enormous number of acronyms, mechanisms, and specific arrangements — making everything highly complex, almost like a world of its own. Meanwhile, international tensions are rising, democracies are under threat, oil exploration auctions are taking place (including at the mouth of the Amazon), and we are hit by heatwaves (Bonn was scorching), floods, and even the impacts of renewable energy expansion…
Highlights for me included visiting the Bonn Climate Camp twice (on Saturday and Sunday) and seeing young people organising themselves, creating spaces for dialogue, and enthusiastically serving high-quality vegan food for everyone, with openness and solidarity. In addition, although outside the scope of CAMAMAZON, it was meaningful to follow the activities of the Kuntari Katu participants — a programme run by the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples to train leaders on global issues. Despite facing many challenges in the international arena, their enthusiasm and our conversations were inspiring.
Finally, in response to a provocation from a Ugandan government official who said their country’s priority is not mitigation, adaptation or climate change, but education, health and security, I heard a powerful reply from an African civil society leader: “Health, education, security — all of this connects to climate change… climate change is a war without bullets that hit us all.”
Useful sources and summaries of SB62
Third World Network Information Service
Earth Negotiation Bulletin reporting on SB62
Research and Independent Non-Governmental Organisations (RINGO) notes from session