ECO 10, SB64
18 June 2026
For the people, BAM! For the workers, BAM!
Here we are: the final day in cloudy Bonn, and we leave with a text on the Just Transition Mechanism that outlines functions and modalities capable of making the COP30 decision implementable. The text is a solid start, but more ambitious options on governance, accountability, and implementation support are essential. Still, ECO must be candid about its frustration: Parties speak endlessly about the importance of just transition, yet spend most of their time debating a TOR for a review rather than actually discussing what a mechanism could do to address fragmentation, lack of coordination and support for Just Transition.
Looking ahead, ECO knows that moving from bullet points to draft text is a significant leap. We genuinely hope that intersessional work, backed by full support for developing countries and observers, will create the space needed to advance these negotiations and deliver swiftly on the agreement reached at COP30.
But no worries, ECO and friends are relentless. We are brimming with determination, energy, and ideas to remind Parties how the BAM must be built: to ensure just transitions at national and local levels are supported in a way that restores hope that another world is possible.
So, dear workers, unions, feminists, youth, Indigenous peoples, people of African descent, peasants, social and climate justice movements: let’s keep converging and building our collective power! We’ve done it once; we can do it again. Let’s work together in the coming months to push our governments to build the BAM that workers and communities need. The BAM might still be loading, but we are ready!
***
Era 404: Implementation not found
Welcome to the implementation era.
At least that’s what everyone keeps telling ECO.
In Bonn, implementation is everywhere; in Presidency speeches, side events, roadmaps, workshops, dialogues, bridges, accelerators, and just about every intervention delivered into a microphone.
The only complication is that everyone seems to have a different understanding of what “implementation” means.
For some Parties, implementation means delivering on commitments that already exist. Finance flows, technology is transferred, adaptation plans get funded at a scale that matches the needs; renewable energy projects are built; communities receive support and countries implement their NDCs and NAPs.
Simple enough…
For others, implementation involves launching new initiatives, a work program here or a dialogue there to help implement previous initiatives, creating new platforms to support implementation efforts..
ECO is beginning to suspect that implementation may require its own implementation plan.
Take agriculture. Parties reached a groundbreaking conclusion: farmers need support to access climate information, fortify food systems, tackle pre-harvest and post-harvest losses, and most importantly, thrive. Climate finance however, remains inadequate, technology transfer remains limited, and implementation, the kind that ECO needs to see, remains elusive. ECO was relieved to learn that the main obstacle is not a lack of evidence, recommendations, reports, or workshops. It is everything that was supposed to happen after them.
The same pattern surfaced elsewhere. Adaptation discussions quickly returned to the reality that countries already have plans waiting to be financed. Loss and Damage discussions reminded Parties that climate impacts are not waiting for procedural clarity. Finance discussions confirmed that needs continue to grow much faster than support.
Which brings ECO to a radical suggestion.
Perhaps implementation should involve implementing things that we can touch and see, not hear and feel.
When developing countries talk about implementation, they generally mean resources, support, technology, capacity-building, and delivery. When many developed countries talk about implementation, they often mean enabling environments, investment ecosystems, mobilization strategies, and other sophisticated ways of discussing finance without discussing finance.
The debate around the proposed Just Transition Mechanism illustrated this perfectly. Nearly everyone supports implementation. The disagreement begins the moment implementation starts sounding ‘expensive’.
As Bonn enters its final stretch, ECO would like to offer a modest contribution to the implementation agenda.
Implementation is not the process of creating increasingly creative ways to discuss implementation. At some point, somebody actually has to deliver.
***
Our SURVIVAL is bracketed and negotiated with “no text”
The protection of people’s lives and livelihoods has once again been postponed. The possibility of adapting to climate change has been sidelined, and the very prospect of survival is being denied. ECO states that “no text options” are not just a textual issue, they are the “no life” option, the “no future” option. These are not policy options. This is a choice.
As we enter the final day of SB64, developed countries continue to treat the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) text with conditionality, showing a willingness to only engage on the composition and modalities of a technical task force. In response, developing countries are calling out this cherry-picking approach and insisting that the entire GGA text including the tripling of adaptation finance be treated as a priority.
As ECO signs off from SB64, we are deeply concerned that this demand by developing countries’ is not being taken seriously. Will we leave Bonn with the fate of people’s lives bracketed yet again?
***
Silence is not a mitigation strategy
After two weeks in Bonn, ECO has heard many versions of the same sentence: implementation is the priority now.
ECO agrees.
But implementation of what? Parties cannot even hold a serious conversation about the ambition and implementation gaps.
The atmosphere does not negotiate with process. The climate crisis is not impressed by agenda management. And the emissions gap will not close because Parties found another elegant way to avoid saying what needs to happen this decade.
Bonn has shown us the problem clearly. Everyone wants the language of implementation. Fewer seem willing to sit with the hard politics and deal with the means of reducing emissions fast enough, fairly enough, and with enough support to keep 1.5°C within reach.
That conversation must happen before COP31. Not in whispers. Not only in side events. Not only through voluntary initiatives. It must be addressed in the formal UNFCCC process, where all Parties are present, where equity is not optional, and where support for developing countries can be demanded alongside higher ambition.
This is why the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) still matters.
The MWP does not need to become punitive, prescriptive or blind to national circumstances. Nobody is asking it to impose targets. But it also cannot remain a polite room where Parties describe barriers, collect examples, thank each other warmly, and then leave the emissions gap unattended.
The next phase of the MWP must help Parties speak honestly about what is missing
in current Nationally Determined Contributions?How finance, technology and capacity can be provided to unlock implementation in developing countries?How can a Global Stocktake (GST) support these objectives and there implementation?
And yes, the conversation must be fair. Developed countries must move first and fastest. Developing countries need real means of implementation, which will determine the pace and scale of their climate actions and enable them to transition away from fossil fuels and scale up renewable energy that addresses energy access and other development challenges.
Workers, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, people of African descent, women, youth and civil society must shape the answers. A just transition cannot be built without those impacted being locked out of the room.
So, dear Parties, before COP31: talk about mitigation. Talk about the gap. Talk about support. Talk about fossil fuels. Talk about what must change in the next GST. Then come prepared to take decisions and to act.