ECO 7, SB62
BAM! What a Week for the Just Transition Work Programme
As readers know, ECO is not optimistic by nature. After all, ECO lives at a time of devastating crises and accelerating climate impacts. That said, after spending the first week of SB62 in the Just Transition Work Programme room, and especially after the Baku Rule 16 debacle, ECO is feeling energized by the real possibility to see a decision that will connect multilateral climate action with justice on the ground.
It was music to ECO’s ears to see a structure for the draft decision with concrete and actionable outcomes spelled out, delegates showing flexibility with the process, and OMG, those Parties on Saturday sharing their concrete proposals – ECO struggled not to cheer… AILAC calling for a global mechanism for just transition, G77 talking about institutional arrangements, AGN, Kenya and the Philippines highlighting the need for solid just transition principles; and South Africa outlining the three key functions (coordination, knowledge and implementation) that this new Mechanism should cover; the Parties talking about JT becoming financeable… BAM BAM BAM. Actually, the list of Parties that shared concrete proposals is so long that we have reached the maximum number of words for this article. It feels good when Parties try to respond to the needs and lived realities of their working people and communities.
Now ECO would be so sad if Week 2 was not to continue in a similar vibe… A draft text with all these proposals, Parties new to the ideas curious to hear more about them, and who knows, they might end up liking some of them! As we heard a delegate say, “there is a potential of a meeting of minds”. The time to negotiate has come! Justice can’t wait anymore!
***
Racial Justice Can’t Wait
At SB62, the inclusion of people of African descent as a specific and historically marginalized group in climate decision-making is an urgent demand. After all, we’re talking about 300 million people globally — 120 million in Brazil alone. This is not rhetorical: the agenda has been raised both in formal negotiations and bilateral meetings. Countries like Panama, under the Just Transition track, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, within the gender agenda, have already expressed explicit support. Even the African Union has signaled positively, aligning with its 2025 priority theme: “Reparatory Justice for Africans and People of African Descent.” It seems obvious — but in the theater of international climate politics, there are always those determined to stick to the colonial script.
And lingering in the wings, the European Union has yet to take a clear stance on this proposal. This silence — from a bloc that loves the microphone when the topic is democracy and human rights — sounds all too familiar. Flashback to COP16 on Biodiversity, in Cali, Colombia: the EU initially resisted including people of African descent in the text. Only after sustained civil society pressure and accusations of colonial behavior did it reverse course. Is the EU planning to replay the same old script?
Denying recognition of people of African descent as legitimate actors in climate negotiations is not a bureaucratic detail — it is structural violence dressed in technical language. Refusing this inclusion is to uphold, in the 21st century, the same logic of exclusion and exploitation that underpinned colonialism. It is to suggest that racism does not shape vulnerability, does not fuel environmental racism, and does not amplify the impacts of the climate crisis.
That’s why we are watching closely. Because we know that if today the world is talking about just transition, loss and damage, adaptation, and climate finance, it is because racialized populations — including Africans and people of African descent — have resisted, built solutions, and protected their territories. Our recognition is not a favor: it is climate and reparatory justice.
***
UNFCCC – QUO VADIS?
ECO has an honest question: Is there anyone in these halls who believes that the UNFCCC, in its current form, can deliver on its goals? After thirty years of negotiations we see that global temperature continues to rise; we have failed to transition away from fossil fuels, and climate finance has not been delivered for those on the frontlines of the climate crisis in any meaningful way. Every time we leave Bonn or COP, we do so with deep disappointment. Our communities suffer worsening loss and damage, political leaders fail us, and the system falls short in addressing the devastating injustices we face. At the same time, we recognise that multilateralism is the only way we can collectively address a global existential crisis such as climate change. It is becoming clearer than ever that meaningful and far-reaching reform of the UNFCCC is urgently needed.
Today, the COP30 Presidency is hosting consultations on priorities for Belém. ECO understands that the Presidency has expressed an interest in exploring ways to improve the effectiveness of the UNFCCC process and strongly supports this objective to make this process work for people and the planet and not big polluters. We can no longer accept a process that allows progress to be blocked, voices to be silenced, and accountability to be avoided. This requires voting when consensus serves to block progress, ending corporate capture, radical transparency and accountability, protecting and widening civic space & upholding human rights obligations, and aligning with international law and other environmental agreements. We need better, not bigger, COPs. The movement is aligned, and we will accelerate our push to renew and strengthen multilateralism rooted in democracy and justice!
Such a conversation can start while we are in Bonn. ECO suggests that we begin with some initial areas for attention: Making Host Country Agreements transparent and accessible, protecting human rights and civic space,; addressing conflict of interest, and ensuring sufficient, affordable accommodation for any UNFCCC session. As the Presidency is also calling for reforming the Action Agenda, ECO proposes a robust selection process of non-state initiatives in the UNFCCC with stringent accountability mechanisms to prevent greenwashing. The time for flashy declarations without accountability is past. The time for an effective, transparent, rights-based climate regime is now.
***
Mind the gap: Who is going to deliver accountability for public finance provision?
As we all know, Baku’s legacy is leaving its mark in Bonn. We left COP29 with many unanswered questions, including the burning one on how to guarantee rich historical emitters will fulfill their obligation to provide public finance – aka fulfilling Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement.
No wonder that this created an agenda fight last week, where the G77 + China called for answers (and rightly so). The compromise is now to have SBI and SBSTA consultations on the Article, potentially opening the door to an agenda item on the matter at COP30. As this will happen today, ECO is here to help Parties to think this through and to remind everyone that transparency and inclusivity in the processes around climate finance are essential to make this work.
So first, why does Article 9.1 need to be addressed?
ECO has heard many times that there are “already various agenda items dealing with finance”. But it doesn’t really matter how many agenda items there are if they fail to address the vacuum left behind by last year’s climate finance decision. The obligation of developed countries to provide public climate finance is a core part of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Supporting a space where it would be discussed and monitored is critical for progress in other negotiation tracks, where finance remains a sticking point.
Honouring commitments to provide finance is also key in restoring trust between Parties and for them to continue meaningful engagement in the process. Adding an agenda point on Article 9.1 is a way to address this fundamental gap left by the Baku decision. ECO hopes everyone sees that clearly, including the Presidency.
And then, what should be addressed in Art. 9.1?
Accountability for the provision of climate finance is essential. That is why we need space at CMA7 and beyond to implement the US$ 300 billion goal and the US$ 1.3 trillion target, considering both quality and quantity of public climate finance provision. It’s particularly important when it comes to scaling up grants, concessional and non-debt creating instruments. You know, the type of money that does not worsen the debt crisis while developing countries design and implement their just transition? Those qualitative targets should be clarified for mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage in line with just transition pathways.
Besides, as Parties know, the Glasgow COP26 target to double the provision of adaptation finance is ending this year. Therefore, a discussion on 9.1 can serve as a much-needed follow-up adaptation finance commitment. It could also create the much needed space for discussions on how the new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage can be sustainably resourced with public finance.
Bottom line, Parties must recognise the need for a dedicated space to address public finance provision by developed countries and engage constructively toward this. And ECO knows that all Parties want to see high ambition outcomes across mitigation, fossil fuel phaseout, just transition, finance, addressing the collective NDC ambition gap at COP30… Therefore they will likely push to ensure public finance is discussed adequately, right?
***
The Magical GSTree
In the GST UAE dialogue room, Parties expressed concerns that there are too many GST dialogues happening or being negotiated, and that they were afraid of duplication. They were also anxious about having a mini-GST every year that could potentially revise the NDCs yearly. This is where ECO would like to remind how this GSTree is magical, and how its fruits are not all cherries, but actually different and complementary.
And the only way to do a proper follow-up of the GST is to mix nicely these different fruits, like a healthy smoothie. ECO hopes the GST harvest will be much better during this second week of the negotiations.
***
Stay on Agroecology Avenue – or end up on the Highway to Hell
“Agroecology is holistic!” “Agroecology is great for adaptation and mitigation!” “Agroecology is improving food security!” “Smallholder farmers benefit from agroecology!” “Agroecology supports biodiversity and health, too!”
On Tuesday’s workshop under the Joint Work on Agriculture and Food Security, the glowing testimonies from countries such as the AGN, the LDCs and the EU, as well as from civil society observers ENGO, YOUNGO, Indigenous Peoples,and the Women and Gender Constituency, offered a feast for those hungry for good news.
It seems that the workshop on “systemic and holistic approaches” has finally set parties to embark down the avenue of agroecology.
Agroecology is rich with biodiversity, lined with trees integrated into agroforestry systems, and has service stations to fix economic, land and gender inequalities. No harmful fossil fuels are used to produce synthetic fertilisers and pesticides! No food wasted or lost around here! The Just Transition bus passes through, leading to a future of food sovereignty, healthy and nutritious diets for all, and good livelihoods for small-scale food producers. No detours to agro-industrial profits, or exploitation of people and nature along the way.
Unfortunately, after all the voices urging Parties, Funding and Constituted Bodies to speed up delivery of agroecology on the ground, discussions came screeching back to their usual snail’s pace. ECO wonders why the speed limit on Agroecology Avenue is so low.
If Parties continue at snail’s pace, they may be tempted to take a wrong turn and end up in Embrapa’s AgriZone during COP30, which already looks hellish to ECO. Diamond-Sponsored by Bayer (merged with Monsanto), ECO fears the space will promote Big Ag’s false solutions such as GMOs, synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. Expect large-scale biofuels and tropical carbon credits to be labelled as part of the “Bioeconomy.”
This seems to ECO like a dangerous and unhealthy space to stop. Parties, please stay on Agroecology Avenue! So that we can all finally reach the long-awaited destination of Just Food System Transformation!
***
The Ghosts of Energy Crises Past
ECO noted with interest Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s speech at the G7 in Canada last week. Among timely and appropriate comments on the war on Gaza and other conflicts, Lula talked at length on the climate crisis and energy security.
The President described Brazil’s many achievements in the area of renewable energies, but didn’t address directly the elephant in the room – the need to transition away from fossil fuels, as reinforced in the GST decision from COP28, and how that squares with Brazilian government’s push to open up large new areas in the Brazilian amazon region for oil and gas exploration. Last week, 34 blocks were sold in a “doomsday auction”, most of them in the ecologically fragile Mouth of the Amazon sedimentary basin.
The speech recalled the oil price shocks of the 1970s – a half century ago – and how the dependency on fossil fuels condemns the world to an uncertain future.
But this raises the question of how to respond to the dependency on fossil fuels – e.g., by transitioning away from fossil fuels in an equitable and organized way, or by extracting as much oil and gas as quickly as possible on Brazilian territory.
It appears that some elements of the current Brazilian government and Congress are making the mistake of preparing to fight the last war – the 1970 oil crisis – by expanding domestic fossil fuel supplies. The President of Petrobras has expressed the desire to “drill baby drill”.
The COP presidency and host country government has a strong influence and ability to shape the COP outcomes. ECO wants to believe that the Brazilian presidency will work to advance the equitable and orderly transition away from fossil fuels, with the onus on developed countries to lead, which is the only possible solution to today’s climate and energy security crises.
***
Adaptation Without Finance Is Just Climate Cosplay
Adaptation and finance negotiators grab a seat, stop the blame game, and try something radical, like talking to each other. ECO’s watching. We’ll bring the snacks, but this isn’t for small talk. It’s time for deep talk, the kind where you finally figure out how to implement and actually finance the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).
While you dawdle over timelines and quibble over technicalities, climate impacts are slamming vulnerable communities right now. Without predictable, scaled-up adaptation finance, the GGA is just an empty shell – shiny on paper, hollow in reality. What exactly are we tracking with all those indicators if nothing’s being funded?
We need the GGA to graduate from theory to practice, and the missing link is finance. Grants-based, public, accessible, and adequate. Yes, all four!
And while we’re at it, can someone shake the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) negotiations out of its slumber? Ambition is nothing without action. NAPs need to reflect the scale of what is needed, grounded in the lived realities of communities. No more excuses for delaying the much-needed support from developed countries for the formulation and implementation of NAPs in developing countries. Any NAPs decision text not backed by accessible public finance will remain without substance.
To put it straight: We need a new, concrete commitment on adaptation finance that follows through on the Glasgow doubling goal due to end this year. With yearly needs of more than $380 billion, it is time to close the adaptation finance gap.
None of this will happen unless adaptation and finance negotiators actually start sitting together instead of pointing to each other. So c’mon, adaptation and finance negotiators. Stop the pointless back and forth and start the grown-up conversation.
***
Missing Which Piece (MWP)?
ECO can’t be-leaf that even after the global dialogue on forests during the Climate Week in Panama, it remains unclear how the forest issue fits into the MWP jigsaw. But we have ideas on the “how”.
For that, let’s first look at the facts: In 2024, the hottest year on record, the loss of primary tropical rainforests surged to more than 6.7 million hectares. Meanwhile, temperate and boreal forests are being cleared out for industrial forestry, including for bioenergy. The combination of climate change, drought, and reckless logging does not paint a pretty picture.
If we lose it, forest carbon isn’t coming back, not by 2030, 2050, or even 2100! If we don’t stop trashing forests and ecosystems, we’ll turn our best climate allies into liabilities.
So ECO wants to see real recognition of forests as a key piece of the climate puzzle, with their storage of billions of tonnes of carbon. The way this remains locked in is by protecting and restoring forest ecosystem integrity, so they are rich in biodiversity and more resilient to fires and extreme climate impacts. This is possible when we look beyond just carbon to the immense benefits forests can deliver to our societies. This necessitates rejecting false solutions such as carbon markets and forest-based bioenergy, and adopting a holistic approach to forests that protects the fundamental role of biodiversity.. Further, it requires close scrutiny of sectors that are destroying forests every day and a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels and forest-based bioenergy, which often emits more carbon than coal.
Oh, also just so you don’t forget. Over half the world’s remaining primary forests are under the custody of Indigenous Peoples and local communities—so we need to listen to them to make sure that their interests and rights are upheld.
These are the messages ECO would like Parties to include in the MWP to enable forests to help solve the climate puzzle, like we know they can.
***
Download the ECO issue here: https://climatenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/ECO-23-June-2025.pdf