Ten Years After the Paris Agreement Was Signed, a Smooth Entry into the Era of Implementation Has Not Materialized. What Happened at the Bonn Conference?

ICLRC researchers Anzhela Shmakova and Inga Kononovich took part as observers in the sixty-fourth sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (SB 64). At the sessions of the two Subsidiary Bodies (SBs), countries work through the technical details of unresolved issues from previous Conferences of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and lay the groundwork for future decisions.

The sessions are a key preparatory stage ahead of the 31st Conference of the Parties (COP 31), which will take place in Antalya, Türkiye, in November 2026. More information on the organization of the UNFCCC negotiation process is available in the Center’s material.

This article presents Anzhela’s view of the course and outcome of the negotiations on the implementation of the Belém adaptation indicators, as well as discussions on the interaction between trade and climate policies, and the transition away from fossil fuels, held from 8 to 18 June in Bonn, Germany. Negotiations on just transition, climate finance, technology tracks and the dialogue on trade and climate are covered in the article by Inga Kononovich.

As in November 2025, during the 30th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 30) to the UNFCCC, I mainly followed the negotiations on the global goal on adaptation (GGA). At that time, States were expected to adopt a list of indicators for measuring collective progress towards the GGA and outline the first steps for their implementation. Reaching consensus was difficult: the main disagreements concerned both the principles for developing and applying such indicators and their list and means of implementation in national legal systems. Nevertheless, a decision was adopted, together with 59 GGA indicators, which came to be known as the Belém adaptation indicators (see Decision 12/CMA.7).

At SB 64 in Bonn, States were expected to begin a two-year policy alignment process by Parties and the technical work aimed at developing guidance for operationalizing the Belém Adaptation Indicators under the Belém–Addis Vision on adaptation launched following COP 30. Before this work began a rather productive workshop was held on adaptation within the architecture of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. The workshop included a presentation by Dr Youssef Nassef, Director of the Adaptation Division of the UNFCCC Secretariat, on the evolution of adaptation issues in multilateral climate negotiations from 1992 to the present; statements by representatives of constituted bodies within the UNFCCC system working on adaptation, such as the Adaptation Committee and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, on their mandates and current areas of work; and an exchange of views among States on ways to operationalize and improve current work on adaptation across the UNFCCC architecture, eliminate duplication of functions and enhance efficiency.

It would seem that, after such a good start, the GGA negotiations should have proceeded smoothly, given how actively the adaptation agenda has developed since 2021, including through the adoption of targets and indicators. To my surprise, however, we faced frequent postponements of consultations at the request of Parties and long silences at the beginning of each meeting. The issues were indeed complex: first and foremost, it was necessary to establish a task force to work on the methodologies for implementing the Belém adaptation indicators. The recent experience of working in two phases, technical and political, with experts on indicators¹ was still fresh in States’ minds and had left mixed feelings, which probably explains the prolonged silence. But once the ice was finally broken, a new problem emerged: countries had too many proposals regarding the composition, timelines and expected outcomes of the task force. Each subsequent meeting was postponed because delegations needed more time to discuss individual proposals and coordinate with other negotiating groups, while the eleven-page draft decision showed no sign of becoming shorter.

This, however, was not the reason for the failure on the GGA in Bonn. In the second week, a red line emerged that blocked the entire further process: developing countries insisted that the text include a reference to the call to triple adaptation finance and to the importance of means of implementation, while developed countries opposed any reference to finance in decisions other than those directly devoted to financial obligations. The positions proved so incompatible that the issue was referred to the heads of delegation. In the end, for the GGA, the Bonn negotiations concluded with a procedural outcome: the Parties failed to reach consensus and the item was referred to the next session under so-called “rule 16”.² As representatives of Small Island Developing States put it at the closing plenary, “for the GGA, rule 16 is the worst possible outcome”. This means that the two-year process for operationalizing the Belém adaptation indicators will see no progress over the next six months.

Another “legacy” of COP 30 was the dialogue on climate and trade,³ with the participation of representatives of the World Trade Organization, the International Trade Centre and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. The dialogue began with presentations by these organizations on how climate issues feature in their work. As soon as the floor was given to States, an exchange of accusations began. Whereas during COP 30 finger-pointing was informally prohibited, , in Bonn one could have kept a separate notebook to count the references to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and other practices of the European Union. Since this format of discussions did not envisage a negotiation process aimed at producing outcome documents affecting the implementation of climate change obligations, the dialogue took the form of identifying the main non-tariff barriers introduced on climate policy grounds and ways to overcome them. The most interesting development came after the dialogue ended: in order to record their concerns in at least some form, developing countries asked the Chairs of the Subsidiary Bodies to prepare a report on the discussions. Developed countries objected, pointing to the absence of a mandate for such a report. During an additional meeting devoted to the interpretation of Decision 1/CMA.7, which provided for the holding of such a dialogue, the SB Chairs assumed responsibility for preparing an informal, non-binding document reflecting the course of the discussions.

Finally, I was interested in how the concerns related to the transition away from fossil fuels, which had been voiced during COP 30, would manifest themselves in Bonn. As is known, the first international conference on the transition away from fossil fuels was held in Santa Marta at the end of April this year.⁴ A significant number of events at SB 64 were devoted to this topic, and they were organized not only by non-profit organizations but also by governments, including Colombia and the Netherlands, which had in fact organized the Santa Marta conference. At last, the purpose of this movement was clearly articulated by conference participants: the Santa Marta conference is not a separate negotiation platform for creating new climate change obligations or developing existing ones, but rather a forum for a coalition of States focused on implementation, that is, a space for cooperation among those who wish to take practical, proactive action towards a complete phase-out of fossil fuels. In addition, in Bonn, the COP 30 Presidency presented its work on developing a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels. Following multiple meetings with representatives of the public and private sectors, the first draft of the roadmap is expected to be prepared by August 2026. It will include a flexible and non-prescriptive framework to assist in drawing up national plans for the transition away from fossil fuels, based on recognition of States’ different national circumstances and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

To sum up, it can only be noted that, at COP 31 in Türkiye, States will face the difficult task of overcoming the disagreements identified in Bonn and urgently making up for lost time in order to enter fully into the era of implementation.