Let’s finally wrap it up; that was the mood in the corridors of the Bonn Conference Center on Thursday. After ten days, the SB60 UN interim conference has ended, and, as always, many questions remain unanswered. That’s why we’re bringing you a Climate.Table special of the most important session in the run-up to COP29 in November.
We provide an overview of what was decided (not much) and what was passed on for further processing (a lot). We focus on the big dispute over finance and have taken a very close look at what lies behind the plethora of proposals. We also look at how the conflict between Israel and Gaza continues to divide the international climate movement. We also introduce Nabeel Munir, who will play an essential role as one of the co-chairs in Baku.
Despite all the exhaustion after the conference, we hope you enjoy today’s special issue!
The SB60 interim conference in Bonn concluded late on Friday without much drama. The expected tough negotiations produced small steps towards preparing for COP29 in Baku in November, but no major breakthroughs. At least the almost 6,000 participants avoided an agonizingly long dispute over the agenda like last year.
In detail and measured against expectations, the results of Bonn:
Although common ground was found in some areas of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) at SB60 in Bonn, there was hardly any significant progress. The developed countries “continue to play with hidden cards,” David Ryfisch from the environment and development organization Germanwatch told Table.Briefings. He says that the COP presidency from Azerbaijan must now take the reins and speed up the NCQG process.
For example, there was no progress on the new climate finance target amount and which countries should contribute. An input paper reflecting the status of the negotiations shows:
According to Climate Home News, the trillion-dollar sums were put forward by the Arab and African group of states. Ana Mulio Alvarez from E3G calls the move by the Arab group of states a “surprising step.” The group is calling for an annual grant of 441 billion US dollars for climate financing and is proposing taxes on the fashion and arms industries. However, observers note that the EU is not taking the initiative very seriously.
According to Alden Meyer from E3G, final decisions on the amount of the NCQG and the expansion of the donor base would have exceeded the negotiators’ mandates. This puts the responsibility on the ministers in the run-up to and in Baku. The NCQG paper shows:
According to observers, good ideas and political compromises are needed to break this stalemate. One compromise could be that countries like China should report to the UN processes on what they are already doing for climate financing – for example, through bilateral South-South cooperation. This would slowly integrate them into the process, the argument goes.
There are still many disagreements about the sources of financing and the time frame:
The negotiators have made very different proposals regarding how long the NCQG will apply:
In addition, different review periods of one, five or ten years are proposed.
There is greater agreement on transparency and access to funding, as observers report. Access to external aid is to be facilitated and payments are to be made more transparent. No definitive decisions have been made.
According to Alvarez of E3G many developing countries were unwilling to discuss these issues. They saw the proposals as a distraction from the truly tricky discussion about the amount of the NCQG.
According to Ryfisch, although some progress has been made in Bonn, the big issues remain unresolved. In order for the NCQG to be finally adopted at COP29 in Baku, the COP presidency must become active and step up the pace. As with the loss and damage fund two years ago, the presidency should appoint a pair of ministers consisting of a representative of the Global North and a representative of the Global South in order to elicit faster compromises from the negotiating parties, Ryfisch suggests.
Other observers are rather pessimistic. In extreme cases, Baku could result in only isolated compromises and a final document containing a lot of vague wording. Important decisions could be postponed until next year. This would be fatal, as the countries have to submit new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 2025. Lack of clarity about the new financial target and access to new climate finance could result in less ambitious NDCs, some negotiators write in the input paper.
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine continues to divide the international climate movement. Tensions were evident at SB60 in Bonn, particularly within the Climate Action Network (CAN), just as they were at COP28 in Dubai. CAN, with over 19,000 members, connects international climate and environmental organizations. German groups find themselves isolated because they reject the exclusive condemnation of Israel for the Gaza conflict. The disputing groups have reportedly agreed internally to downplay the issue within the movement and avoid escalating the confrontation.
Right at the start of the conference, the topic came to public attention. Without coordinating with other environmental organizations, Tasneem Essop, head of CAN International, and Anabella Rosenberg, deputy head of political strategy at CAN International, staged a protest at the edge of the stage during the opening ceremony. They held a Palestinian flag and a banner reading “No business as usual during a genocide”. Only after a session interruption and repeated requests by the assembly leader were they removed by UN security personnel. Their UN accreditation for the conference was revoked. It remains unclear whether their breach of the demonstration ban during the UN session will have further consequences. They stated that the protest was private and not in their capacity with CAN.
Tensions had already surfaced before SB60. At the end of May, CAN International published a statement on the situation in Palestine, taking a stance against Israel and showing solidarity with Palestine. They unequivocally condemned Israel’s invasion and described it as a developing “genocide”. The Hamas attack on Oct. 7 is not mentioned in the statement.
Many German organizations did not support this language. The statement was democratically voted on within CAN, with the German position being in the minority. “This statement was supported by a majority of members, but many did not,” says Brick Medak, team leader for energy policy and climate protection at the German Nature Conservation Union (NABU), in an interview with Table.Briefings. NABU distanced itself from the CAN statement.
According to Medak, German environmental groups agree on their assessment of the situation in Gaza. “The conflict within the global climate movement is certainly not helpful because the climate movement should focus on climate policy,” he says. Germanwatch shares the concern for the suffering of civilians in Gaza and the violations of international humanitarian law by the Israeli army mentioned in the statement. However, they also distance themselves: “We do not support the statement in this form as it does not mention the atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law by Hamas,” says Lutz Weischer, head of Germanwatch’s Berlin office.
CAN International has not commented on the tensions within the network. Multiple inquiries from Table.Briefings went unanswered.
Internally, it is said that there were heated discussions among climate activists at SB60 regarding the stance on Gaza. For many activists from the Global South, Palestine’s suffering represents something larger – a proxy conflict for the many injustices of the Global North against which they have been protesting for years. German organizations find themselves relatively alone in their position.
European NGO observers believe that the tension within the climate movement is unlikely to affect the negotiations in Bonn. Nonetheless, the conflict is omnipresent at the conference and repeatedly disrupts the negotiations over the two weeks. There are regular pro-Palestinian protests in front of the conference building in the mornings, and some conference participants wear the Palestinian Kufiya scarf around their necks.
Ahead of the Bonn meeting, Pakistani diplomat Nabeel Munir, who serves as Chairman of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), one of the two technical bodies of the UNFCCC, had one big ask: The two-week technical negotiations should have a smooth beginning. He got his wish. The session kicked off despite protests by Russia (on lack of visas) and civil society (Israel’s war in Gaza), with countries adopting the agenda.
Munir did not wish for a repeat of last year, his first as SBI chair, when countries only managed to adopt the agenda on the penultimate day of the meeting. Agreement on the agenda is step one, and with finance being the big-ticket issue for the year, smooth sailing remained a tall ask. Though the SBI chair points out that the big-ticket items of finance will be primarily taken up at the annual climate meet in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29). The discussions in Bonn are broader such as just transition, adaptation, mitigation, of course each of these includes finance.
Even though people across continents are experiencing more intense and extreme weather and disruption, the pace and scale of progress of tackling climate change is not commensurate with the challenge. Munir highlights two major factors that impede action – geopolitics and trust. “The broader geopolitics and the kind of divisions that we are seeing in the world get translated into all kinds of negotiations, and climate change is not an exception.
The other factor is probably more specific to climate change, and that is trust. Both Munir and his Dutch colleague Harry Vreuls, chairman of the SBSTA, are trying to overcome this lack of trust. Munir acknowledges that “there is a lot of work that still needs to be done”.
The Pakistani diplomat has had something of a steep learning curve in the climate process. Munir is something of a UNFCCC newbie. In his seven-year stint at Pakistan’s UN Mission in New York, Munir had occasion to take on climate-related issues. But it was only in 2019 when he was posted at headquarters in Islamabad that his climate engagement grew. ”Glasgow was my first COP,” he said.
Munir might be a new entrant to the UNFCCC/COP process, but he is no novice. “At Glasgow, I was the Pakistan’s head of delegation, the next year I was heading G-77 and China as Pakistan had the rotating chair, and then I became the SBI chair.” Besides his climate-related responsibilities, he is Pakistan’s Ambassador to Korea.
Seeing the renewed and vocal demand for a loss and damage fund that began at Glasgow become a reality at Dubai is a highlight. “From a party delegate raising the demand to pushing for the fund as the G-77 chair to overseeing its establishment as SBI chair, it has been a satisfying moment.” So how has Munir’s outlook changed as moved from leading a party to a group of 130-odd countries to becoming the referee and conciliator in chief. The focus broadens and there are more perspectives to navigate.
As the Bonn meetings draw to a close and negotiators get ready for months of hard work culminating in Baku this November, Munir said “It’s not just the North or the South, everyone has to do things that are beyond their comfort zones. This is exactly what I am now telling people on both sides of the divide, that you have to understand that it is the interest of all of us that we work together, because only collective action is going to make a real difference.” Urmi Goswami
Let’s finally wrap it up; that was the mood in the corridors of the Bonn Conference Center on Thursday. After ten days, the SB60 UN interim conference has ended, and, as always, many questions remain unanswered. That’s why we’re bringing you a Climate.Table special of the most important session in the run-up to COP29 in November.
We provide an overview of what was decided (not much) and what was passed on for further processing (a lot). We focus on the big dispute over finance and have taken a very close look at what lies behind the plethora of proposals. We also look at how the conflict between Israel and Gaza continues to divide the international climate movement. We also introduce Nabeel Munir, who will play an essential role as one of the co-chairs in Baku.
Despite all the exhaustion after the conference, we hope you enjoy today’s special issue!
The SB60 interim conference in Bonn concluded late on Friday without much drama. The expected tough negotiations produced small steps towards preparing for COP29 in Baku in November, but no major breakthroughs. At least the almost 6,000 participants avoided an agonizingly long dispute over the agenda like last year.
In detail and measured against expectations, the results of Bonn:
Although common ground was found in some areas of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) at SB60 in Bonn, there was hardly any significant progress. The developed countries “continue to play with hidden cards,” David Ryfisch from the environment and development organization Germanwatch told Table.Briefings. He says that the COP presidency from Azerbaijan must now take the reins and speed up the NCQG process.
For example, there was no progress on the new climate finance target amount and which countries should contribute. An input paper reflecting the status of the negotiations shows:
According to Climate Home News, the trillion-dollar sums were put forward by the Arab and African group of states. Ana Mulio Alvarez from E3G calls the move by the Arab group of states a “surprising step.” The group is calling for an annual grant of 441 billion US dollars for climate financing and is proposing taxes on the fashion and arms industries. However, observers note that the EU is not taking the initiative very seriously.
According to Alden Meyer from E3G, final decisions on the amount of the NCQG and the expansion of the donor base would have exceeded the negotiators’ mandates. This puts the responsibility on the ministers in the run-up to and in Baku. The NCQG paper shows:
According to observers, good ideas and political compromises are needed to break this stalemate. One compromise could be that countries like China should report to the UN processes on what they are already doing for climate financing – for example, through bilateral South-South cooperation. This would slowly integrate them into the process, the argument goes.
There are still many disagreements about the sources of financing and the time frame:
The negotiators have made very different proposals regarding how long the NCQG will apply:
In addition, different review periods of one, five or ten years are proposed.
There is greater agreement on transparency and access to funding, as observers report. Access to external aid is to be facilitated and payments are to be made more transparent. No definitive decisions have been made.
According to Alvarez of E3G many developing countries were unwilling to discuss these issues. They saw the proposals as a distraction from the truly tricky discussion about the amount of the NCQG.
According to Ryfisch, although some progress has been made in Bonn, the big issues remain unresolved. In order for the NCQG to be finally adopted at COP29 in Baku, the COP presidency must become active and step up the pace. As with the loss and damage fund two years ago, the presidency should appoint a pair of ministers consisting of a representative of the Global North and a representative of the Global South in order to elicit faster compromises from the negotiating parties, Ryfisch suggests.
Other observers are rather pessimistic. In extreme cases, Baku could result in only isolated compromises and a final document containing a lot of vague wording. Important decisions could be postponed until next year. This would be fatal, as the countries have to submit new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 2025. Lack of clarity about the new financial target and access to new climate finance could result in less ambitious NDCs, some negotiators write in the input paper.
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine continues to divide the international climate movement. Tensions were evident at SB60 in Bonn, particularly within the Climate Action Network (CAN), just as they were at COP28 in Dubai. CAN, with over 19,000 members, connects international climate and environmental organizations. German groups find themselves isolated because they reject the exclusive condemnation of Israel for the Gaza conflict. The disputing groups have reportedly agreed internally to downplay the issue within the movement and avoid escalating the confrontation.
Right at the start of the conference, the topic came to public attention. Without coordinating with other environmental organizations, Tasneem Essop, head of CAN International, and Anabella Rosenberg, deputy head of political strategy at CAN International, staged a protest at the edge of the stage during the opening ceremony. They held a Palestinian flag and a banner reading “No business as usual during a genocide”. Only after a session interruption and repeated requests by the assembly leader were they removed by UN security personnel. Their UN accreditation for the conference was revoked. It remains unclear whether their breach of the demonstration ban during the UN session will have further consequences. They stated that the protest was private and not in their capacity with CAN.
Tensions had already surfaced before SB60. At the end of May, CAN International published a statement on the situation in Palestine, taking a stance against Israel and showing solidarity with Palestine. They unequivocally condemned Israel’s invasion and described it as a developing “genocide”. The Hamas attack on Oct. 7 is not mentioned in the statement.
Many German organizations did not support this language. The statement was democratically voted on within CAN, with the German position being in the minority. “This statement was supported by a majority of members, but many did not,” says Brick Medak, team leader for energy policy and climate protection at the German Nature Conservation Union (NABU), in an interview with Table.Briefings. NABU distanced itself from the CAN statement.
According to Medak, German environmental groups agree on their assessment of the situation in Gaza. “The conflict within the global climate movement is certainly not helpful because the climate movement should focus on climate policy,” he says. Germanwatch shares the concern for the suffering of civilians in Gaza and the violations of international humanitarian law by the Israeli army mentioned in the statement. However, they also distance themselves: “We do not support the statement in this form as it does not mention the atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law by Hamas,” says Lutz Weischer, head of Germanwatch’s Berlin office.
CAN International has not commented on the tensions within the network. Multiple inquiries from Table.Briefings went unanswered.
Internally, it is said that there were heated discussions among climate activists at SB60 regarding the stance on Gaza. For many activists from the Global South, Palestine’s suffering represents something larger – a proxy conflict for the many injustices of the Global North against which they have been protesting for years. German organizations find themselves relatively alone in their position.
European NGO observers believe that the tension within the climate movement is unlikely to affect the negotiations in Bonn. Nonetheless, the conflict is omnipresent at the conference and repeatedly disrupts the negotiations over the two weeks. There are regular pro-Palestinian protests in front of the conference building in the mornings, and some conference participants wear the Palestinian Kufiya scarf around their necks.
Ahead of the Bonn meeting, Pakistani diplomat Nabeel Munir, who serves as Chairman of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), one of the two technical bodies of the UNFCCC, had one big ask: The two-week technical negotiations should have a smooth beginning. He got his wish. The session kicked off despite protests by Russia (on lack of visas) and civil society (Israel’s war in Gaza), with countries adopting the agenda.
Munir did not wish for a repeat of last year, his first as SBI chair, when countries only managed to adopt the agenda on the penultimate day of the meeting. Agreement on the agenda is step one, and with finance being the big-ticket issue for the year, smooth sailing remained a tall ask. Though the SBI chair points out that the big-ticket items of finance will be primarily taken up at the annual climate meet in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29). The discussions in Bonn are broader such as just transition, adaptation, mitigation, of course each of these includes finance.
Even though people across continents are experiencing more intense and extreme weather and disruption, the pace and scale of progress of tackling climate change is not commensurate with the challenge. Munir highlights two major factors that impede action – geopolitics and trust. “The broader geopolitics and the kind of divisions that we are seeing in the world get translated into all kinds of negotiations, and climate change is not an exception.
The other factor is probably more specific to climate change, and that is trust. Both Munir and his Dutch colleague Harry Vreuls, chairman of the SBSTA, are trying to overcome this lack of trust. Munir acknowledges that “there is a lot of work that still needs to be done”.
The Pakistani diplomat has had something of a steep learning curve in the climate process. Munir is something of a UNFCCC newbie. In his seven-year stint at Pakistan’s UN Mission in New York, Munir had occasion to take on climate-related issues. But it was only in 2019 when he was posted at headquarters in Islamabad that his climate engagement grew. ”Glasgow was my first COP,” he said.
Munir might be a new entrant to the UNFCCC/COP process, but he is no novice. “At Glasgow, I was the Pakistan’s head of delegation, the next year I was heading G-77 and China as Pakistan had the rotating chair, and then I became the SBI chair.” Besides his climate-related responsibilities, he is Pakistan’s Ambassador to Korea.
Seeing the renewed and vocal demand for a loss and damage fund that began at Glasgow become a reality at Dubai is a highlight. “From a party delegate raising the demand to pushing for the fund as the G-77 chair to overseeing its establishment as SBI chair, it has been a satisfying moment.” So how has Munir’s outlook changed as moved from leading a party to a group of 130-odd countries to becoming the referee and conciliator in chief. The focus broadens and there are more perspectives to navigate.
As the Bonn meetings draw to a close and negotiators get ready for months of hard work culminating in Baku this November, Munir said “It’s not just the North or the South, everyone has to do things that are beyond their comfort zones. This is exactly what I am now telling people on both sides of the divide, that you have to understand that it is the interest of all of us that we work together, because only collective action is going to make a real difference.” Urmi Goswami
