Day 10, 26th June: End of Bonn, Road to Belém
📺 Watch a video message from Osver Polo and Karla Wolfenson (CAN Latin America)
✍🏼 A Reflection from Colm Fahy – Ecology Advocacy Officer at JESC
And that’s a wrap… almost!
The SB conferences are all about preparing for the next COP, and the final day of SB62 was our chance to ask: is the world ready for COP30? The answer, predictably, is a mixed one.
At the Climate Action Network International (CAN) press conference, we were told a successful day would involve three texts being adopted and taken forward to COP30: on Adaptation, Just Transition, and the Global Stocktake. While a draft text emerged for Just Transition and adaptation indicators progressed significantly, the Global Stocktake dialogue saw limited advancement. I personally witnessed frantic, last-minute discussions between EU and Saudi Arabian delegates over the text’s caveat during the closing session of that dialogue!
Throughout SB62, climate finance remained a major sticking point, and unfortunately, the text on Loss and Damage goes towards COP30 with more work still to be done. As the conference closed, many participants commented to each other, “See you in Belém” – a familiar farewell for those on the relentless merry-go-round of international climate negotiations. However, beneath these gestures lay a great worry about Belém, as rumours circulated the conference hall questioning whether this small Amazonian city is truly prepared to host COP30.
That’s yet to be seen. Many thanks for following these personal reflections, and indeed, see you again for our coverage of Belém!
Colm Fahy, Jesuit European Social Centre
✍🏼 Highlight of the Day from Daniela Alba – Advocacy Coordinator at the Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat (SJES)
The final day of the 2025 Bonn Climate Change Conference (SB62) closed with cautious optimism on carbon markets but underscored persistent flaws that threaten their credibility. While the first ‘Article 6.2 ambition dialogue’ showcased success stories and capacity-building efforts to scale up cooperative carbon trading, critical issues such as lack of transparency, low credit quality, and questionable sustainable development benefits were downplayed 1. The dialogue notably failed to address the responsibility of buyer countries—mostly developed nations with large emissions—to have ambitious domestic mitigation targets aligned with the Paris Agreement goals, raising concerns that these countries may use carbon credits to offset rather than reduce emissions, thereby weakening global climate ambition 2. Meanwhile, debates continued over the future of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) funds, with most developing countries calling to channel the remaining $45 million to the Adaptation Fund to support vulnerable nations, contrasting with developed countries’ preference to bolster carbon market mechanisms 3.
Alongside carbon market discussions, nearly 200 countries agreed to increase the UNFCCC core budget by 10% for 2026–2027, raising it to about €81.5 million ($95.3 million), with China increasing its contribution share and Bloomberg Philanthropies covering the share lost after the United States’ withdrawal 4. Despite this effort, budget constraints remain, as some countries previously blocked larger increases, potentially limiting the secretariat’s capacity to fully support climate governance and adaptation efforts 5. The conference also advanced the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), with negotiators agreeing on a pathway toward establishing a Belém Action Mechanism at COP30 to support just climate policies 6. However, adaptation finance and Loss and Damage remain controversial items, with developing countries, farmers coalitions, civil society and indigenous peoples groups warning that without clear, adequate, and accessible finance linked to these goals, COP30 will fail to deliver meaningful outcomes at this critical time of the climate crisis and geopolitical turmoil 7.
Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva proposed a bold COP30 roadmap to end fossil fuel production and consumption, fulfilling the Dubai COP28 promise by establishing a mandated group to design a “planned and just transition,” ending deforestation by 2030, and scaling up renewables and energy efficiency 8 13. The conference spotlighted the urgent need to curb fossil fuel industry influence in UN climate negotiations, with calls for transparency, conflict-of-interest safeguards, and exclusion of fossil fuel lobbyists from decision-making to restore trust and ambition 9 10. Groups such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) stressed that progress on adaptation, mitigation ambition, and Loss and Damage is too slow and called for COP30 to be an “Adaptation COP” with robust finance and rights-based approaches 11 15. As Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network International, said: “Enough is enough. While bombs get billions and polluters are increasing their record profits, Bonn has once again exposed a system rigged to protect polluters and profiteers – complicit in a global order that funds destruction but balks at paying for survival” 12. With those powerful remarks and as we wrap up this segment of reporting from the Bonn Climate Conference (SB62), one thing remains crystal clear – COP30 must deliver decisive political will, enhanced climate finance, and a rights-based, equitable approach to secure a just and effective global climate transition amid accelerating climate impacts and geopolitical challenges 14. As we journey together towards Belem in November, we invite you to remain engaged with the Jesuits for Climate Justice: Faith Action at COP30 Campaign, your participation is key to ensuring a future fit to care for our common home!
Daniel Alba, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat
(original publication: ecojesuit.com)
Day 9, 25th June: Final Negotiations Underway
📺 Watch a video message from Winnie Nalubowa (CIDSE)
✍🏼 A Reflection from Colm Fahy – Ecology Advocacy Officer at JESC
Time is ticking, and as always with these sorts of negotiations, there’s a lot left to do at the last minute. This was perfectly demonstrated at a consultation I attended on the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for Loss and Damage, where a draft agreement for approval at COP30 is in its final stages of completion. At the end of the session, there was a request to extend the conversation for a further ten minutes, which caused some debate amongst the moderators. Even after almost two weeks of working on this text, and countless hours dedicated to it in the evenings and in between sessions, a mere ten minutes more was still needed to reach a consensus.
Press conferences have also highlighted the intensity of these closing negotiations. Greenpeace, for instance, pointed out the striking fact that this is the first international climate conference in 30 years where the USA has not sent any delegation. This certainly underscores the need for other countries to unite to ensure climate justice, but is that actually happening? The European Union, a powerful bloc of nations that could potentially step into the USA’s shoes, hasn’t even submitted its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) yet!
Throughout this conference, however, there’s a palpable optimism about COP30. Will the fact that Brazil, a country intrinsically linked to the Amazon and rich in indigenous traditions, inspire concrete climate action and, hopefully, a greater sense of urgency?
Colm Fahy, Jesuit European Social Centre
✍🏼 Highlight of the Day from Daniela Alba – Advocacy Coordinator at the Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat (SJES)
The second to last day of SB62 was marked by decisions made in largely informal negotiations across multiple climate action tracks, with minimal transparency due to many sessions being closed to observers 1. Discussions continued on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) where differences remain over the scope and structure of the indicators proposed, especially regarding the inclusion of Means of Implementation (MOI) metrics 2. The EU and several developed countries proposed to delete sections on the Baku Adaptation Roadmap draft due to insufficient discussion, while the G-77+China opposed this and preferred to retain all options for discussion at SB63 3. As a compromise, the EU, supported by Australia, suggested capturing progress on these sections in an informal note (this does not represent formal agreement) 4.
Continued negotiations on the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) highlighted concerns from AOSIS and allies about the proposed “Belém platform” 2. Meanwhile, parties reconvened for a rushed 30-minute session, to try to finalize a draft text on the third review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) for COP30 5. The Co-Facilitators presented an informal note to serve as a basis for continuing discussions at the next session in Belem, and after opening the floor, the G77+China agreed to this approach. Consequently, work on the third review of the WIM will continue in Belem, building on the progress made here in Bonn 1. Conversely, the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) continued to expose divisions over institutional arrangements, rights-based framing, and the handling of unilateral trade measures 10. Developing countries, including SIDS and the G77, advocated for inclusive, equity-centered approaches and warned against weakening rights language, while debates over trade-related impacts remain politically delicate 3.
Stocktake-related negotiations, including the modalities of the UAE Dialogue and the Global Stocktake (GST) technical assessment timeline, grappled with unresolved design issues. While there was consensus on synchronizing assessments with COP timelines and allowing flexibility, disagreements persisted on the number of dialogues, end dates, and the incorporation of new IPCC data 4. SIDS emphasized the need for these processes to remain responsive and anchored in the 1.5°C goal, cautioning that resistance could limit their ability to leverage scientific findings in negotiations 1.
Overall, Parties continued to underscore the urgent need to connect adaptation indicators with finance flows to avoid further fragmented efforts 6. Many stressed that the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance must align more closely with the GGA 7. Without this integration and the active participation of civil society, indigenous and farmers groups – there is a risk that adaptation efforts will be meticulously monitored but insufficiently funded. This gap will continue to impact already vulnerable communities in a disproportionate manner without holding parties accountable to their commitments 8. Furthermore, Civil Society and Indigenous activists continued to highlight the inequalities in access to protection and rights from extractivist entities, stressing the need for recognition of the legal statutes behind these negotiations – a discussion which has caused a lot of tension throughout these last days but is desperately needed 9. We continue monitoring and reporting on these important and decisive topics on the last day of the Bonn Climate Conference. Stay tuned, the bulk of the work begins now!
Daniel Alba, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat
(original publication: ecojesuit.com)
Day 8, 24th June: Catholic Voices and Side Event
📺 Watch a video message from Dr Samuel Zewdie Hagos (DeZIM-Institut) and Dr Jörg Alt SJ
✍🏼 A Reflection from Colm Fahy – Ecology Advocacy Officer at JESC
The two words that struck me most on day two of the second week of SB62 were: unity and adaptation.
Firstly, “adaptation” was quite literally the word of the conference, with tense negotiations continuing on how to further define and track progress towards the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). This is particularly challenging regarding the development of a robust set of indicators. It has, perhaps predictably, become a point of division between national delegations from the Global North and those from the Global South. Negotiations are ongoing.
Secondly, and in stark contrast, I observed significant unity within the Catholic delegation. This group, comprising members of religious orders, civil society organisations, and bishops, has been meeting informally throughout the conference. Despite their diverse backgrounds, spanning both the Global North and Global South, their message is unified: UNFCCC processes must serve the world’s poorest, who suffer most from climate change.
This unity was powerfully demonstrated at the Jesuits for Climate Justice side event in the evening, regarding Climate Change and Climate Migration. The discussion, led by experts Dr. Samuel Zewdie Hagos and Dr. Jörg Alt SJ, focused on how many extreme weather events in the Global South are currently addressed by the media as “natural disasters”, with no reference to their root cause; and on how investing in bold responses can be argued by being of interest also to the Global North. Climate migration is indeed a topic seldom addressed at these negotiations, yet one of growing urgency and already affecting and displacing millions of people. The lively discussion that followed the presentations highlighted a strong sense of unity among the Catholic actors present at these conferences, reinforcing the Catholic Church’s role in giving a voice to the voiceless.
Ps. The raw footage of yesterday’s side event can be watched here, and the presentations of Dr. Hagos and Dr. Alt can be accessed here and here.
Colm Fahy, Jesuit European Social Centre
✍🏼 Highlight of the Day from Daniela Alba – Advocacy Coordinator at the Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat (SJES)
On the eighth day of the Bonn Climate Conference, JESC held its side event, holding a timely discussion on climate related mobilities, with a focus on climate related migration, a topic not really mentioned throughout the week but deeply important to the ongoing discussions. To watch the event, please follow this link: JESC YouTube.
Adaptation (GGA) continued taking center stage in the negotiations, as developing countries, led by the Least Developed Countries group chair Evans Njewa, intensified calls for developed nations to triple adaptation finance by 2030 relative to 2022 levels, describing adaptation as a “lifeline” for vulnerable communities 1. This builds on the COP26 commitment to double adaptation finance by 2025, which remains unfulfilled and will only be tentatively assessed in 2027 2. Even tripling finance would provide less than $100 billion annually—far below the UN’s estimated $160–340 billion needed by 2030. Meanwhile, major donors including France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK plan cuts in adaptation funding for 2026, and with the added loss of the United States, who will not contribute to adaptation finance in either 2025 or 2026 – the prospect of meeting the goals only seems less plausible 4. Visa restrictions and limited interpretation services continue to hinder equitable participation of developing country delegates, complicating negotiations and trust-building ahead of COP30 5.
Informal consultations on the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) saw agreement to forward the joint annual report to COP30, but Parties failed to agree on forwarding the third WIM review to SB63, raising concerns about stalled progress on finance and support for vulnerable countries facing unavoidable climate impacts. Furthermore, negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) revealed both concurrence and strain 6. Most Parties, including the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), supported streamlined, equity-focused indicators for the GGA, though differences remain on the number, structure, and inclusion of Means of Implementation metrics 6. The MWP discussions highlighted concerns over Brazil’s proposed “Belém platform,” with SIDS cautioning that digital tools must support—not replace—urgent climate ambition and be designed for low-capacity contexts. The Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) exposed divisions on institutional arrangements, rights-based framing, and unilateral trade measures, with SIDS and the G77 advocating for inclusive, equity-centered pathways 1. Stocktake-related discussions grappled with modalities and timelines for the Global Stocktake, with vulnerable countries stressing the importance of anchoring processes in the 1.5°C goal and ensuring science-policy coordination remains inclusive and responsive 9.
Civil society groups, including Climate Action Network (CAN), called for urgent climate action ahead of COP30, demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 and stronger alignment of Nationally Determined Contributions with Global Stocktake outcomes 5. Concerns grew over the failure of the world’s largest carbon offset projects to deliver promised emissions reductions, with research showing that about 80% of offsets retired in 2024 by 43 large projects—mostly in the Global South—were unlikely to represent real emissions cuts 11. Experts from WHO, FAO, and WFP urged urgent reform of agricultural subsidies to prioritize crop inputs, boost yields, and reduce malnutrition, especially in low-income countries like Uganda, noting that over 70% of global subsidies currently favor livestock, sugar, and rice rather than nutrient-rich crops 12. Procedural challenges and political tensions—exacerbated by closed-door informal negotiations without access to reporters or other observers—highlight the complex and high-stakes nature of SB62 as we near the closing of the conference.
Daniel Alba, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat
(original publication: ecojesuit.com)
Day 7, 23th June: Just Transition, Shared Responsibility
📺 Watch a video message from Jana Pancacaru (Pancacaru People in Brazil)
✍🏼 A Reflection from Colm Fahy – Ecology Advocacy Officer at JESC
It’s officially week two of SB62 here in Bonn, and I’m excited to share that we have some new faces joining the Jesuits for Climate Justice team! I’m here representing JESC (Jesuit European Social Centre), attending the talks alongside Filipe Martins SJ. Last week was a bit intense, with many of the discussions getting pretty detailed and complicated.
One big discussion that’s still going on is about something called the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP). This was a point we couldn’t quite agree on back at the last big climate meeting (COP29), and we’re really trying to get a final agreement here to officially start the program. In a nutshell, the JTWP is all about making sure that as we shift to cleaner energy and ways of doing things, it’s done in a way that’s fair and includes everyone. It’s about ensuring nobody gets left behind and that we help workers and communities adapt to these changes. You’d think this would be something everyone could agree on, but unfortunately, there’s been a lot of disagreement. Essentially, countries that are still developing want the program to guarantee that this green shift is fair for them, with the necessary financial help and without unfair trade rules getting in the way. On the other hand, wealthier countries are leaning towards a plan that focuses more on a quick move to a low-carbon world, without getting bogged down in specific financial promises or trade disagreements within this particular program.
Beyond the main negotiation rooms, today was packed with some really interesting side events. One that particularly stood out focused on people being forced to move from their homes because of climate change. The numbers shared were truly shocking – for example, a massive 83 million people had to move within their own countries in 2024 alone. These meetings also offer fantastic opportunities to connect with other faith groups. Today, we had a really nice lunch meeting where various faith groups came together, all emphasizing that it’s a moral duty for our organisations to push for strong action on climate change at these important gatherings.
It’s certainly been a busy and engaging start to week two!
Colm Fahy, Jesuit European Social Centre
✍🏼 Highlight of the Day from Daniela Alba – Advocacy Coordinator at the Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat (SJES)
Negotiations at SB62 intensified across multiple tracks on the seventh day of the conference, with many sessions held as informal informals largely closed to observers, limiting detailed reporting 1. Discussions focused primarily on accountability, coherence, and political will to meet climate obligations 2. Key debates centered on structuring the technical phase of the second Global Stocktake (GST2), including timelines, the role of IPCC inputs, and reconciling COP28 decisions with the Paris Agreement 3. While there was agreement to launch GST2 from COP29 with intersessional flexibility, tensions remain over data management and sequencing 4. Developing countries expressed concerns about potential duplication of efforts, emphasizing the GST’s role in implementing Decision 1/CMA.5 and addressing finance barriers, reflecting a core fault line between deepening implementation focus and fears of shadow targets outside the Paris framework 1.
Climate finance dominated political discussions, especially consultations on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, as in previous days. Developing country groups continued advocating for a dedicated work programme on Article 9.1, highlighting its legal nature and linking unmet finance commitments to rising adaptation and loss and damage needs 5. They criticized the dominance of loans over grants and the lack of political will from developed countries, who resisted a standalone agenda item and preferred integrating 9.1 discussions into broader finance topics. Loss and Damage finance continued to be a prominent theme, with calls for sustainable funding of the Loss and Damage Fund, though developed countries largely avoided explicit acknowledgment 6.
New data presented at SB62 revealed that private finance, especially blended finance, is falling far short of meeting the Global South’s energy transition needs, with only 38% of the $5.7 trillion annual investment required currently flowing 7. Civil society was persistent in calling for a shift toward public, grant-based climate finance and debt cancellation to enable just and equitable transitions through the JTWP 8. Agriculture and climate impacts also featured prominently within the groups representing farmers coalitions, with Indian farmers suffering severe crop losses due to erratic monsoons and wildlife damage far exceeding government compensation 9. Experts urged the creation of fair, timely compensation mechanisms and integrated conservation approaches to protect vulnerable livelihoods amid escalating climate risks 10.
The overall negotiation atmosphere was tense, marked by procedural delays and political disagreements threatening trust and ambition heading into COP30 in Brazil 11. Equity, finance, and accountability remain core battlegrounds for this last week of negotiations. Civil society and Indigenous Peoples are urgently demanding for reforms to the UNFCCC process, calling for greater transparency, majority-based decision-making, and protection from corporate influence 12. Complementing these efforts, the Jesuit European Social Centre (JESC) will host an event on the 24th, exploring the role of climate change in forced migration. We hope to see you there!
Daniel Alba, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat
(original publication: ecojesuit.com)
Day 6, 21th June: Climate Action and Justice
📺 Watch a video message from David Munene (CYNESA)
✍🏼 A Reflection from Richard Solly – Advocacy and Campaigns officer at Jesuit Missions UK
At the end of the first week of a conference characterised by the continuing reluctance of the rich countries which have caused the climate crisis to stump up anything approaching the amount of money needed to tackle it, it was bizarre to sit through several meetings in which country delegations quibbled over the minutiae of texts. In general all developing countries, including those which have recently become relatively prosperous, are united in their insistence that developed countries fulfil their financial obligations under the Paris Agreement of 2015; but a dispute broke out between China and the Arab Group of Nations on one side and the Least Developed Countries and the European Union on the other about whether to ‘welcome’ or simply ‘take note of’ the notes of a previous meeting. While the discussion continued I was wondering how long it will be before the rapid loss of glaciers in the Alps slows the summer flow of the nearby River Rhine to a trickle, and whether the discussion was really helping effective climate action.
A dialogue between the Chairs of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body of Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) and Observer Groups (including us Jesuits, though we did not speak because large groupings of organisations spoke first, and we ran out of time) was more enlivening. Many concerns were raised. One was the difficulty caused to so many delegates by the fact that all business was in English and at most sessions no interpretation was available. The Chairs agreed, explaining that United Nations budget cuts were to blame. This is very disempowering for many civil society organisations; as are the frequent delays in the agenda caused by disputes between countries, meaning that there is no time for Observers to speak and posing the danger that there will be insufficient time for agreement to be reached on some agenda items, including the Gender Action Plan.
Friends in Caritas Internationalis and SCIAF (Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund) held a side event on ‘Holistic Climate Action’ which considered hopeful examples of agroecological agriculture making life better for small-scale farmers and building resilience and adaptability in the face of a changing climate. It was good to end the first week on a note of hope: it had not been a hopeful week, and I had felt disgust at the way the most wealthy continued to use their power to prevent ‘the Wretched of the Earth’ from achieving justice. The struggle continues!
Richard Solly, Jesuit Missions UK
(original publication: Jesuit Missions UK)
✍🏼 Highlight of the Day (5 and 6) from Daniela Alba – Advocacy Coordinator at the Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat (SJES)
The first week of the Bonn Climate Conference (SB62) revealed slow progress across key climate issues, reflecting persistent tensions between developed and developing countries on finance, adaptation, mitigation ambition, and loss and damage 1. Ongoing discussions and negotiations on the Global Stocktake (GST) showed broad support for advancing timelines, but disagreements remain over the scope of the UAE Dialogue, with some Parties favoring a narrow focus on finance and implementation, while others call for a comprehensive approach 2. Polarization was also evident in the Mitigation and Just Transition Work Programme, with developing countries resisting rigid language and developed countries pushing for alignment with the 1.5°C target 3.
A major focus was placed on the review of the draft text for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), where Parties debated the number and features of adaptation indicators, methods of implementation, and integration of cross-cutting themes with an emphasis on gender, ethnic and persons with disabilities. While there was an overall agreement to use the current draft as a basis, disagreements remained on consolidating implementation modalities and managing the expert group’s role. An informal session was called to reconcile these differences ahead of COP31 4.
Consultations on the Baku to Belém Roadmap continued, with participation from Parties, civil society, and Indigenous peoples 5. Although there is consensus on the need for scaled-up finance, sharp divergences remain over the balance between grant-based public finance and private sector mobilization. Additionally, the roadmap points out key deficiencies in transport sector funding and advocates for changes in multilateral development banks and concessional finance arrangements 6. The Brazilian COP30 Presidency aims for a “COP of Implementation,” leveraging finance ministers’ engagement to drive progress 7.
The Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) review on Loss and Damage saw multiple informal consultations but no final agreement. Discussions covered the State of Loss and Damage Report and potential guidelines for integrating Loss and Damage into NDCs. The review is vital for operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund and supporting vulnerable countries, but its delay means decisions will likely be deferred to COP30. Meanwhile, the IPCC launched an updated framework of 409 adaptation indicators, modernizing the 1994 guidelines and providing a robust scientific basis for the Global Goal on Adaptation.
Finally, the conference was shadowed by the growing influence of sophisticated climate misinformation campaigns that undermine trust in climate finance and solutions, complicating negotiations and public discourse 8. Civil society highlighted shrinking spaces at high level events, such as SB62 and COP30 – especially for citizens of the Global South – and called for greater transparency, justice, and inclusion in the UNFCCC process 9. A meeting with the Holy See delegation and other faith-based groups opened much needed dialogue and information sharing, which could guide the strategy and cohesion at COP30 for these groups 12. As we enter the second week of the SB62 and prepare for the final stretch to COP30 in the coming months – the challenge remains to bridge entrenched divides 10. The urgency needs to be visible through enhanced ambition and consistent and intentional translation of institutional tools into effective, equitable climate action that responds to the urgency of the climate crisis at this opportune moment 11.
Daniel Alba, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat
(original publication: ecojesuit.com)
Day 5, 20th June: Building a Shared Voice
📺 Watch a video message from Budi Tjahjono (Franciscan International)
✍🏼 A Reflection from Richard Solly – Advocacy and Campaigns officer at Jesuit Missions UK
On Friday 20th June, the 5th day of the SB62 talks, members of the Network of Catholic Climate and Environment Actors (NCCEA) met with the delegation sent by the Holy See (the Vatican). Policy experts within the NCCEA summarised our main concerns:
1 NDC Ambition
‘Nationally Determined Contributions are the plans that countries make to reduce their carbon emissions. Some countries’ plans are very impressive – like those of low-lying island Vanuatu – but many lack ambition and most have yet to be submitted in the current round. We requested that the Holy See should submit its own plan soon.
2 Just Transition
There is an urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy that would violate nobody’s rights and leave nobody behind.
3 Climate finance
We stressed the need for sufficient public, grant-based finance to be provided by developed countries to developing countries, and for cancellation of unjust and unpayable debt to be part of this.
4 Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage
There is an urgent need for the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage to receive sufficient money to make a difference.
5 The need for action for Climate Empowerment
There is a need to ensure that countries are enabled to do that they need to do to take action on climate change, including through climate education.
6 Food systems transformation and agroecology
We said that a global food sovereignty system is needed based on culturally adapted modes of production, transformation, distribution, and food consumption, applying ecological principles to agriculture.
7 Way forward on preparing for COP30
We spoke of the need to ensure that Catholic organisations and the Church in Brazil co-ordinate practical arrangements for the COP 30 talks in November in Belem, Brazil.
The Holy See delegation welcomed the opportunity to hear from us all and stressed the need for education on climate change to take place everywhere and at all levels so that people realise the urgency of the need to take action. It emphasised the need for debt cancellation and spoke of Pope Francis’ urgent call for this in his proclamation of the Jubilee Year. And it observed that Just Transition has to be something other than a technocratic exercise but be based instead on what the Church calls Integral Ecology, taking all our relationships with each other and other life forms into account. The meeting ended with fervent prayer for peace in the world.
Further meetings between NCCEA and the Holy See delegation will take place before the COP30 talks.
Richard Solly, Jesuit Missions UK
(original publication: Jesuit Missions UK)
Day 4, 19th June: Finance, Adaptation, and Inclusive Dialogue
📺 Watch a video message from Lucas D’Ávila(Caritas Brazil) and Annia Klein (CIDSE)
✍🏼 A Reflection from Cristobal Emilfolk SJ
A large part of the discussions taking place in the dozens of meeting rooms at SB62 focus on money. Indeed, it is an essential component of conversations on “Loss and Damage” for countries most affected by the critical effects of climate change. However, focusing so much on finances means that other dimensions of damage are obscured. That is what a group of faith-based organizations aimed to highlight today, organizing an event to discuss NELD: Non-Economic Loss and Damage.
When we talk about NELD, we refer, for example, to the damage to rituals and traditions that form part of a people’s cultural heritage, the dispersion of communities that are forced to migrate, the anxiety and trauma that is generated primarily among children and young people, as well as the sacred bond that exists between many peoples and the land they inhabit, which cannot be exchanged for another ground.
Certainly, money is required to meet many of these needs. But that is not all. Money is not an end in itself but a means to an end. It must be accompanied by empathy, mercy, and a series of values and attitudes that truly aim to transform this society. The voices of institutions related to various spiritualities and religions must find a place in these forums, where haste and urgency sometimes cause us to forget that behind all this, there are human and non-human lives at stake.
Cristobal Emilfolk SJ
✍🏼 Highlight of the Day from Daniela Alba – Advocacy Coordinator at the Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat (SJES)
Many have asked, why is SB62 so important? We can deduct a large part of the importance of this conference from the updates on the negotiations from the fourth day. Marked by intensive technical and political mediations, the conference continues to serve as a crucial checkpoint on the climate crisis. Engagement with non-Party stakeholders, including civil society and Indigenous Peoples, centered on the Baku to Belém Roadmap under the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) 1. Civil society reiterated calls for a concrete plan to massively scale up Loss and Damage finance and ensure the Loss and Damage Fund is fully resourced 2. The COP30 presidency introduced a “circle of finance ministers” to guide efforts toward the annual finance target, but concerns about transparency and inclusiveness were consistently raised as in prior days regarding the topic.
Meanwhile, technical work on adaptation drew in key insights, with negotiators focusing on refining a shortlist of indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and implementing the UAE-Belém Work Programme, reflecting the COP30 presidency’s emphasis on adaptation as priority for November 3. Discussions also focused on the modalities for the dialogue mandated in paragraph 97 of decision 1/CMA.5, intended to facilitate implementation of the global stocktake (GST) outcomes. Several parties, including India, recalled the challenging negotiations in Baku, where divergent views prevented consensus. While the dialogue aims to support GST implementation, parties remain divided on its scope and function, highlighting the growing challenge of balancing equity, access, and national interests 4.
In parallel, the third review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) saw progress on proposals for a State of Loss and Damage Report and improved institutional coordination, although observer access issues persisted despite previous commitments to inclusivity, which continues to be a recurring theme across all major agenda points 5. The Sharm el-Sheikh Dialogue on Article 2.1(c) further revealed the fractions between developed and developing countries over aligning financial flows with climate goals 6 . Developed countries advocated for clearer metrics, regulatory frameworks, and private sector engagement, while developing countries, including the G77, LMDCs, AGN, and AOSIS, stressed that alignment must not introduce new burdens or conditionalities and must be linked to the provision of finance under Article 9, safeguarding the equity and national policy spaces 7 8.
The day also saw the launch of the second annual dialogue on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), with Vanuatu presenting its NDC 3.0, which features 45 Loss and Damage commitments 8. These developments underscore SB62’s pivotal role in shaping the technical groundwork and trust-building necessary for meaningful outcomes at COP30, as well as the importance of transparent and inclusive multilateral processes for global climate action that are both inclusive and multilateral 9.
Daniel Alba, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat
(original publication: ecojesuit.com)
Day 3, 18th June: Negotiations in Motion
📺 Watch a video message from Harry Zekollari (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)
✍🏼 A Reflection from Cristobal Emilfolk SJ
It is the third day of the Bonn Climate Conference–but actually, it is the first day of negotiations. I state this because it took almost two full days for the parties to agree on the agenda for this preparatory meeting, which is supposed to set the precedent for COP30. One obvious consequence of this, is that time and space seem even more limited for steering the packed list of key issues toward a successful conclusion. Beyond the confines of this meeting – the days are running out to come up with answers to the climate emergency – especially for those who are already suffering the worst repercussions.
There are so many issues and points under discussion that everyone has to form alliances. Countries form interest groups through which they can better represent their often divergent interests; constituencies do the same, finding strategies to amplify and perhaps make their messages more effective. Everything is transformed into a space for discussion and negotiation, where expectations must be put into play through links that must be dynamic and flexible if they are to survive.
In a way, this reminds me of the logic of alliances in nature and the fact that we are all connected, as are our actions. I know it’s cliché, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
Alliances, in general, can be forged for a wide range of objectives and with positive or even spurious intentions. I wonder how we can establish links that can actually help us leverage faster and better? How can we successfully structure the actions we need to act effectively (but not recklessly) and in a qualified and more sustainable way; successfully address this challenge that affects us all, without distinction.
Cristobal Emilfolk SJ
✍🏼 Highlight of the Day from Daniela Alba – Advocacy Coordinator at the Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat (SJES)
We are back with the highlights from the third day of the Bonn Climate Conference (SB62) underway. Despite significant setbacks, some progress and ongoing challenges emerged around several critical and timely agenda topics.
For starters, the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), and the Baku to Belém Roadmap for climate finance discussions brought to light a deep wedge in the dynamics between the parties. The continued push from grassroots organizations, indigenous peoples and the civil society blocs for the institutionalization of Just Transition principles through inclusive participation, dedicated finance, and integration into national climate planning led to interesting discussions. Concrete demands included the launch of the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) to accelerate support and remove systemic barriers, reflecting a strong bottom-up momentum for a transition that is ambitious in the current global financial climate at the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement.
Complementing these efforts, the ambitious Baku to Belém Roadmap aims to mobilize $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 to support developing countries’ climate action 1, with a strong emphasis on grants, concessional finance, and addressing the severe shortfall in loss and damage funding. Despite ongoing disagreements on financing modalities and responsibilities, the roadmap represents an urgently needed framework for scaling up equitable, accessible climate finance, with a summary report expected at COP30 to guide future action. Furthermore, the UAE Dialogue Modalities revealed deep seeded divisions, with developed countries favoring a broad platform addressing all Global Stocktake outcomes, while most Like-Minded Developing Nations, led by the G77 2, insisted the dialogue focus specifically on finance under the Means of Implementation and Support agenda. No consensus was reached on the dialogue’s scope or modalities, reflecting ongoing tensions over implementation and accountability.
Advocates, scientists, civil society and human rights defenders stood alongside Indigenous peoples present in Bonn as they continue demanding that climate policies prioritize the needs and rights of frontline communities and workers in conflict zones 3, with an emphasis on the war unfolding in the Middle East and an end to arms use in the name of the environment. Ongoing backlash for the lack of support and clear intentions of parties in reaching those most affected by the climate emergency places a necessary pressure on the negotiations and talks underway 4 – calling clearly for a spirit of urgency in the name of climate justice 5.
Daniel Alba, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat
(original publication: ecojesuit.com)
Day 2, 17th June: Civil Society Speaks Up
📺 Watch a video message from Anieta Loj (Brahma Kumaris Spiritual Movement)
✍🏼 A Reflection from Richard Solly – Advocacy and Campaigns officer at Jesuit Missions UK
A press conference on Palestine at 10am noted that under the UN climate agreements, governments do not have to report on carbon emissions from their military activity and that carbon emissions resulting from the war in Gaza far outstrip the total emissions of dozens of countries. Military spending in 2023 was apparently 2.44 trillion US dollars – yet developed countries quibble over providing 1.3 trillion dollars a year for climate mitigation and adaptation.
I moved on to a side event on Climate Stories from the Global South. Here we heard about the huge gap between the UNFCCC definition of ‘climate finance’, supported by developing countries, and the understanding held by developed countries. The first holds that developed countries are obliged to provide funds to developing countries to reduce their carbon emissions and adapt to climate change. The second includes any kind of money from anywhere, including profit-driven loans from private institutions. Much information was provided about the Adaptation Fund, the Global Climate Fund and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage. These funds have in common that the sums pledged are wholly inadequate and that the sums provided fall far short of what has been pledged.
The delayed opening plenary session was due to begin at 11am, so I hurried to the main meeting room – only to be kept waiting for 40 minutes before an announcement was made that it was postponed until 1pm. So I attended another side meeting: ‘Forging synergies for people and planet – transformative actions for a just and sustainable future’, held jointly by the UNFCCC and other UN agencies. It looked at the social, environmental and financial benefits of a joined-up approach to UN agreements on Climate, Biodiversity and the Sustainable Development Goals. Three reports are to be published in July looking at the role of finance, including insurance, in tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and catastrophic disasters; the connection between climate action and human health in cities; and the link between conservation, sustainable development and climate action.
The supposed 1pm beginning of the delayed opening plenary was postponed until 3pm. So I attended a useful interfaith networking meeting, then hurried to the 3pm postponed delayed beginning of the opening plenary, but it had been delayed until 4pm; then until 5pm. Meanwhile, forests burnt and glaciers melted and sea levels rose… But at last, at 5pm, the Chairs of the two Subsidiary Bodies, SBI and SBSTA, announced that after days of negotiations, a compromise agenda had been agreed. From various comments made by National Delegations, it was clear that developed countries had been unwilling to address the funding concerns of developing countries, who were justifiably angry. The power of money asserted itself as always. But at least negotiations can now continue on many of the substantive issues, and not simply on the agenda itself. That seemed like a small sign of hope.
Richard Solly, Jesuit Missions UK
(original publication: Jesuit Missions UK)
✍🏼 Highlight of the Day from Daniela Alba – Advocacy Coordinator at the Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat (SJES)
Marking the second day of the 62nd session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) in Bonn, the lack of agreement over the adoption of the agenda of the negotiations heightened tensions as the opening plenary session was delayed for several hours. The remarks made by the UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, Simon Stiell were clear, “And if we want COP30 to take us another global step forward, we need the next eight days to deliver concrete progress, across all aspects of the agenda” 1. Earlier in the day, ongoing disagreements—especially over climate finance and the obligations of developed nations to the Global South per Article 9.1—delayed substantive negotiations and highlighted persistent justice concerns by the “Like-Minded Developing Countries” blocs 2.
Civil society mobilized to urge parties to uphold and prioritize the commitment to urgent, equitable climate action, warning that procedural stalling undermines trust and ambition in the fight for climate justice. Many demonstrations by Indigenous groups also highlight ongoing humanitarian crises at the intersection with climate change and conflicts that exacerbate it which places further and necessary pressure on the proceedings. Meanwhile, Carbon Market Watch and other observers raised concerns about the need for human rights safeguards and transparency to protect marginalized communities, emphasising the implementation of Article 6.2 by the private sector and developed country parties 3.
The IISD and partners also reported similar feedback on just energy transition discussions 4, highlighting the importance of supporting workers and communities impacted by the fossil fuel phase-out, while actively advocating for agroecological and gender-transformative solutions in agriculture and the integration of indigenous and traditional practices to be implemented 5. Negotiators were consistently warned against diluted commitments, urging that both adaptation and climate finance reach those most in need and align with human rights principles 6. The persistent procedural and political tensions at SB62 will shape the path to COP30, with Blocs from the Global South and Civil Society actors remaining vocal in demanding justice, accountability, and meaningful action in these next two weeks of negotiations 7.
Daniel Alba, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat
(original publication: ecojesuit.com)
Day 1, 16th June: Opening Day
📺 Watch a video message from Dr. Antoinette Nestor (University of Cambridge)
✍🏼 A Reflection from Richard Solly – Advocacy and Campaigns officer at Jesuit Missions UK
Arriving at my first ever climate talks on the feast day of my patron saint, St Richard of Chichester, might have felt propitious, but it did not. I was late, because of train delays (I missed the protests in solidarity with Gaza as well as the planned time for the beginning of business). The weather felt tropical in its heat and humidity. And the day’s official business, the beginning of the SB62 conference, was continually put back because of disagreements over the agenda. I was reminded of Pope Francis’ words in his Encyclical Letter, Laudato Si: ‘The failure of global summits on the environment make it plain that our politics are subject to technology and finance. There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good…’ (Laudato Si 54)
A key reason for the differences of position which prevented many of the hoped-for agreements at the COP29 climate talks in Baku last November was money. Those who have it do not wish to give it to those who need it. As Pope Francis pointed out: ‘A true “ecological debt” exists, particularly between the global north and south, connected to commercial imbalances with effects on the environment, and the disproportionate use of natural resources by certain countries over long periods of time…. The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries has repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa, where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved devastating for farming.’ (LS 51)
These disagreements are still preventing progress. As one of my colleagues in the Network of Catholic Climate and Environment Actors mused, “I wonder how the end will be if we start like this.”
Since the opening plenary seemed delayed indefinitely, I attended a side meeting about climate migration, which is also the subject of our Jesuit event to be held on Tuesday 24th June at 6.30pm CET and livestreamed. Again, Laudato Si specifially mentions this matter: ‘There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognised by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever. Sadly, there is a widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.’ (LS 25)
We heard, among other things, about the millions of cattle which have died as a result of drought in Kenya in recent years and the thousands of people displaced first as a result of this destruction of their herding livelihood and then by the destruction of homes caused by devastating floods which followed the drought – ominous changes in weather patterns which are clearly a result of a changing climate. It is to address such events that the Loss and Damage Fund has been established – but as contributors to the event pointed out, even if the Loss and Damage Fund works, it will provide money to affected communities. How do you put a financial value on the loss of a way of life, of a place full of memories and the remains of ancestors, of a community that has lived together for generations, when people are forced to move? Addressing ‘non-financial losses’ caused by climate chaos may be even more difficult than addressing financial losses. This human pain and suffering needs to be kept in mind by those who cling to their wealth when it plainly needs to be shared, or to a way of life which damages the climate, when it needs to be left behind.
As Pope Francis wrote: ‘We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalisation of indifference.’ (LS 52)
Richard Solly, Jesuit Missions UK
(original publication: Jesuit Missions UK)
✍🏼 Highlight of the Day from Daniela Alba – Advocacy Coordinator at the Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat (SJES)
The 62nd session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) opened on Monday, June 16, 2025, at the World Conference Center in Bonn, Germany, bringing together delegates from around the world to advance technical negotiations on climate action ahead of COP30 in Belém, Brazil 12.
We highly encourage all to engage with this effort as we prepare to make the journey towards Belem in November. Now, more than ever, the negotiations on climate change agreements such as the Paris Agreement, will mark a turning point for the future of our common home.
Forming part of the “Jesuits for Climate Justice: Faith in Action at COP30 ” Campaign, there is a participation of the apostolic body of the Society of Jesus present and reporting daily! They belong to the Jesuit Missions UK and Jesuit European Social Centre (JESC).
From the Secretariat of Social Justice and Ecology in Rome, we will be briefing you daily with key outcomes, relevant updates and key moments from the process taking place over the next two weeks. Amid high expectations to address unresolved issues from COP29 and set the stage for COP30 in Belém, Brazil. Delegates from nearly 200 countries are gathered to negotiate technical details crucial for advancing adaptation, climate finance, transparency, and the just energy transition.
Key Issues to be Discussed
- Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and UAE-Belém Work Programme:
Parties are negotiating a manageable set of indicators (no more than 100) to track collective progress on adaptation across sectors such as agriculture, health, biodiversity, and infrastructure. The challenge remains to balance measurable, meaningful indicators with flexibility to accommodate diverse national contexts. Disagreements persist on which indicators to prioritize and how to ensure accountability without overburdening developing countries 58. - National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Implementation Barriers:
While many countries have developed NAPs, translating these into funded, effective projects remains difficult. Key barriers include inadequate climate finance, limited technical support, and weak institutional capacity. The role of the Green Climate Fund and other financial mechanisms is under scrutiny, with developing countries demanding more accessible and predictable funding 58. - Climate Finance and the Baku to Belém Roadmap:
The roadmap aims to scale climate finance to $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, but gaps in accessibility, allocation, and transparency are major sticking points. Negotiators face pressure to agree on a new adaptation finance target beyond the current one expiring in 2025. Tracking finance flows to ensure funds reach vulnerable populations remains a contentious issue 56. - Transformational Adaptation and the Baku Adaptation Roadmap (BAR):
The BAR’s vague language on implementation and reframing of indicators as “enablers” has raised concerns about weakening accountability. Developing countries from the Global South emphasize the need for guaranteed means of implementation—finance, technology, capacity building—to achieve transformational adaptation. Resolving these tensions is critical for progress 5. - Transparency, Monitoring, and Reporting:
Parties are discussing enhancements to the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) to better capture adaptation progress. Support for developing countries in reporting and clarifying the role of the Consultative Group of Experts are on the agenda 5. - Just EnergyTransition and Fossil Fuel Phase-Out:
Following the deadlock at COP29, SB62 includes discussions on just transitions, focusing on equitable support for local, indigenous and marginalized communities affected by the process of a fossil fuel phase-out. However, geopolitical divisions and differing national interests limit prospects for swift agreement 10. - Procedural and Political Tensions:
The first day saw procedural disagreements over agenda items, reflecting underlying political tensions and differing priorities among Parties. Some proposals by groups such as the Like-Minded Developing Countries met resistance, highlighting the challenging negotiation environment 5. - Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the “Global Mutirão” Spirit: The EDF, while not faith-based, echoes the collaborative ethos promoted by the Brazilian COP30 Presidency’s “global mutirão” initiative, emphasizing collective action and partnership as essential to overcoming geopolitical rifts and rebuilding trust in the multilateral climate process 6.
Relevant Perspectives
Faith-based organizations attending SB62 emphasize the moral imperative of climate justice, calling for urgent action on adaptation and support for vulnerable communities. They stress that climate negotiations must prioritize equity, transparency, and the voices of Indigenous Peoples and marginalized groups to rebuild trust and foster genuine collaboration 24.
Amongst others, we invite you to follow Jesuit Missions UK and Jesuit European Social Centre (JESC) who are part of our Jesuits for Climate Justice Campaign and have a delegation in presence at SB62 and are actively posting resources, which you can find listed below!
Other partners, such as CIDSE, highlight the need for climate finance to be accessible and aligned with human rights principles. They caution against diluted commitments and urge Parties to ensure that adaptation funding reaches those most in need, including smallholder farmers and Indigenous communities 4.
Carbon Market Watch and Human Rights Concerns: Civil society groups, including faith-based actors, are closely monitoring carbon market mechanisms under Article 6.2, raising concerns about safeguards for human rights and environmental integrity. They call for transparency and accountability to prevent harm to vulnerable populations 7.
Stay Tuned…
SB62 is a pivotal moment to resolve technical and political deadlocks that will mark the future of climate change. The Brazilian COP30 Presidency’s call to push to elevate adaptation and rebuild trust frames the negotiations is strong, but deep divisions and procedural hurdles remain to be seen through. The outcomes at SB62 will critically influence the implementation hurdles, climate funding landscape and inclusiveness of COP30 in November. It will also mark the crucial period between July and November for the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), determining whether the UNFCCC process can regain momentum in this decisive decade for climate action and justice for our common home.
Daniela Alba, Social Justice and Ecology Secretariat
(original publication: ecojesuit.com)
