ECO 4, SB64
11 June 2026
Deliver justice – Build an inclusive Belém-Addis Adaptation Taskforce
The technical taskforce supporting the Belém Adaptation Indicators must not become another closed-door exercise. ECO reminds you: indicators that are not grounded in real-life will fail the Global Goal on Adaptation.
The composition of the taskforce must be inclusive and recognise the contributions of vulnerable groups and communities. The inclusivity must be ensured not only through formal representation but also through meaningful participation at all stages of the task force’s work.
ECO recommends that the modalities of the taskforce must acknowledge locally-led implementation, capturing the lessons of what actually works, and what fails,on the ground.
In addition, community-generated data from the most vulnerable territories provide valuable evidence for strengthening climate adaptation policies, and enables the identification of gaps, the orientation of priorities, and the allocation of resources where climate risk is most severe. ECO believes that the commitment to justice and territorially grounded information underpins the effective implementation of adaptation and the building of resilience in communities.
ECO would like to emphasise that implementing adaptation is not merely a technical exercise. We have to ensure rights-based approaches to adaptation and build adaptation governance that is just, evidence-driven, and accountable to those on the frontlines. Parties have the opportunity to do this here in Bonn.
***
From “The Cloud” to the field: Is AI coming for our agriculture and climate?
Every day ECO gets more nervous that AI is coming for our jobs, our data and security controlled by billionaires, our politics shaped by algorithms, and our planet heated by energy-guzzling data centres. But did you know that AI is also coming for our food and agriculture? Or that the Sharm-el-Sheikh agriculture negotiations this week risk opening the door to a data-induced dystopia?
ECO reminds Parties that in the workshop this time last year, on “systemic and holistic approaches to implementing climate action on agriculture, food systems and food security” dozens of interventions from Parties and Observers repeatedly spotlighted and celebrated how agroecological approaches to farming tackle multiple adaptation, mitigation, biodiversity, health, soil and socio-economic challenges, while also empowering farmers.
Imagine ECO’s disappointment, then, to see a draft text in Belém that seemed to put greater emphasis on AI than agroecology. Instead of focusing on a proven, affordable, equitable, accessible and no-regrets approach, some Parties seem to think that totally unproven, unregulated, unsavoury AI would be a preferable option for UNFCCC endorsement and financing. Parties negotiating this week should centre agroecology in the draft text and remove the references to AI – or pull the plug on the draft text
Allow ECO to highlight just a few of the many risks around AI and its impacts on agriculture. Firstly, jobs. With agriculture the world’s biggest employer, any approach that aims to replace the quarter of the world’s population currently relying on agriculture for their livelihoods, with remote-controlled tractors, drones and data, is setting us up for an explosion in poverty and inequality.
Secondly, water. If AI data centres grow as projected, the water required to cool these electricity guzzling data centres by 2030 will be comparable to the water demand of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa for a year. How will agriculture cope with competition from AI in addition to the climate impacts already putting our food systems under severe stress?
Third, minerals. AI’s projected hunger for metals and minerals is on a scale that will derail the renewable energy expansion and our transition away from fossil fuels.
And fourth, colossal carbon emissions. You probably knew this one already.
Sorry to drone on about it, but an unquestioning endorsement of AI as a climate solution does not compute. Let’s just let the idea of AI in agriculture negotiations rust in peace.
***
Not enough, but not too late – put Loss and Damage back on the agenda
Loss and damage from climate change is now omnipresent. Naturally, ECO assumed that the devastation and disaster from climate extremes, which often falls most heavily on those who have done least to cause the problem, would bring the issue of Loss and Damage to the front and centre of the work agenda of international climate negotiations. Well, ECO looked, but it is nowhere to be found.
As pointed out by Ghana on behalf of the AGN and Timor-Leste on behalf of the LDCs in the opening plenaries, there is currently no comprehensive loss and damage agenda item in the negotiations, despite it being the third pillar of climate action. Many countries stressed the need for balance between mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage, but balance there is not.
It is not to be found in the climate finance work programme, where it should be, even though the NCQG explicitly recognized the need for more support to address loss and damage.
ECO knows that you might ask if this really matters. Is it not enough that we have the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) that is making steady progress, albeit with very limited funding and the Santiago Network which is already catalysing technical assistance, despite risks of running out of money?
In an era of declining humanitarian funding, deepening conflict, and growing poverty and inequality, where climate disasters directly affect an estimated 100 million people each year, ECO says heck no, it is not enough!
But it’s not too late. This is the time to shine for the incoming COP31 Presidencies – Türkiye and Australia.
At a time when the world is reeling with wars, cost of living crises and a rapidly unfolding climate crises, we need bold leadership to give us hope. Türkiye and Australia can do this.
While the opportunity might have been missed for Bonn, it is not too late to give Loss and Damage its rightful place, both in the Climate Finance Work Programme and on the agenda at COP31, and they can start with the Pacific Pre-COP, where the leaders of the Pacific can platform the losses and damages and adaptation needs of highly vulnerable countries.
With the moral and technical leadership of the Pacific, the Pre-COP can set the stage to further cement loss and damage as the third pillar of climate action. At COP31, Parties must take the next step, by establishing a dedicated COP and CMA agenda item on filling the FRLD to the scale needed. And they must support its integration into the climate finance work program, including in the Article 9.1 discussions on providing increased public finance.
ECO sees the sunshine through the stormy skies and hopes that the Türkiye-Australia-Pacific COP31 and its leaders will deliver the tangible outcomes that communities impacted by climate change so desperately need.
***
From Dialogue to Action: Time for the Ocean Dialogue to Make Waves
As the 2026 Ocean and Climate Change Dialogue kicked off in Bonn, civil society groups arrived with a simple message: “We love this Dialogue, but can it do a bit more, please?” Being the UNFCCC’s only ocean hangout, this Dialogue should also start influencing decisions too, especially with COP31 on the horizon and ocean-friendly co-presidents cheering from the sidelines.
Importantly, the Dialogue was never meant to be a VIP room for the UNFCCC’s oceanistas. The idea was to bring some refreshing ocean spray to the climate agenda by getting everyone to consider the ocean without adding yet another agenda item to an already crowded slate.
Fast forward to today: the Dialogue is thriving as a show-and-tell for ocean solutions, with 300+ case studies in 2024 alone. Impressive, yes; but there’s a catch. Lots of ideas, both great and not so great, are shared, and then politely left behind in Bonn. ECO suggests that the next step is for the good ideas to actually shape policy, while the bad ones are abandoned.
For example, the Blue Carbon framing that permeates the Ocean Dialogue is a very limited way to understand complex and vital ocean ecosystems. This narrow definition risks driving the exploitation of oceans for commercial purposes instead of their protection, especially when linked to carbon markets and offsetting.
On the other hand, achieving a fossil-free ocean by banning new offshore oil and gas licenses as a first step to a just and equitable transition, is the most effective ocean-based mitigation option, but this fact barely registers in the Dialogue.
The proposed “roadmap for the dialogue” would surely help give the Dialogue direction, track progress, and ensure that the good ideas don’t vanish into meeting notes. The trick is to keep things useful without accidentally creating yet another bureaucratic monster. Maybe we could call it a Work Plan and not a Roadmap so as to move the Dialogue toward implementation.
ECO has also noted the absence of some Parties and an overarching lack of enthusiasm. Right now, a few countries are doing most of the talking, while others hang back. More voices from Parties (bolstered maybe by the designated “ocean people” across UN bodies) could help turn ocean talk into real climate action.
Bottom line: the Ocean and Climate Change Dialogue is already a well-loved space for ideas. Now it needs to step up a level from a place where good ideas simply float around, to where they actually make waves. With momentum building toward COP31, this is the moment to shine for the sake of planetary health and future generations. 🌊