ECO 9, SB64

17 June 2026

Developing countries ask: Why are only our priorities negotiable? 

ECO is angry. ECO is concerned with GGA negotiations. ECO is chewing its nails to the bone. We are one and a half days from the close of SB 64, and still lightyears away from a consensus to anchor the tripling of adaptation finance in the GGA text. 

ECO would like to remind delegates that this is not some new demand that materialised in Bonn: You, dear Parties, took this decision at COP 30. It was repeated many times in the room in Bonn, and developing countries standing in unity have consistently called for it. 

So ECO is struggling to understand a clear inclusion of one of the clearest and most widely supported priorities of developing countries.

ECO wants to be clear, in case we were not understood before: the GGA can only be significant if we address the historical elephant in the adaptation room: means of implementation, particularly adaptation finance. Without it, targets remain aspirations and indicators become meaningless accounting exercises.

Yet developed countries continue to resist meaningful engagement on this important issue. ECO gets the  feeling that developing countries’ priorities are being deprioritised and painted as ‘too political’ or ‘too unrealistic’, while in fact they reflect the reality of adaptation needs in communities at the forefront of climate impacts. 

So far, the emerging picture is a GGA that delivers indicators, reporting requirements and expectations for developing countries, but no predictable pathway to the support needed for implementation.  

ECO urges the SB Chairs, GGA co-facilitators, and developed countries to take this matter seriously, especially particularly if we want to achieve the GGA targets in time. Or we risk coming out of Bonn with nothing to reassure those reeling from the impacts of the climate crisis.

***

Highway to hell or stairway to heaven?

After a painful wait, we finally got to see a text on the JT mechanism on Monday. It arrived with interesting ‘key messages’ on Just Transition and agriculture and food systems. 

It carried several ideas we are keen to see included, although more ambitious options on governance, accountability, and implementation support are needed. 

ECO has been hearing the specifics from feminists, unions, youths, NGOs, and Indigenous Peoples, so we are sure you’ll get the memo.

Unfortunately, the text still carries evidence of the inflexibility of some Parties that decided to make the ToR of a work programme the core output from our week in Bonn. 

This has remained unresolved, and ECO is concerned that this could risk throwing our work of the past three years down the drain – a potential highway to hell…

We need to pick up the tempo to land the BAM.

And as much as we love AC/DC, dear Australian Presidency of the negotiations, we’ll need other songs to shake these vibes… Do you hear the calls for funded and open intersessionals after Bonn, to better prepare for a BAM agreement at COP?  It’s a long way to the top, we all want to rock and roll!

***

COP30 President – People will say we’re in love

Dear Ambassador,

ECO shouldn’t declare itself to you for the third time in the same Bonn session. What will people say? But we can’t help it: your move to write a letter to the UNFCCC Executive Secretary requesting a provisional agenda item for finance at CMA 8 and CMA 9 was amazingly bold. ECO is swooning.

Developing countries have been demanding this since we got to Bonn. After all, everybody left Belém trusting that the Climate Finance Work Program would be a space to debate the serious shortcomings of providing public finance for saving lives and economies in those nations least responsible for this crisis. The sudden disappearance of the agenda item has caused justifiable indignation.

Your move to use Presidency power to make the request was unusual and left a lot of people puzzled:

“Can he do that??” 

Hell, yes. 

“How dare he??” 

Daring. 

Of course some people were less than happy with it. But by restoring the spirit of the Mutirão decision with this quirky maneuver, and making it right for developing nations, you are following the teaching of the great Brazilian writer João Guimarães Rosa: “What life demands from us is courage”.

Keep going, Mr. President.   

Your less demanding friend,

ECO

***

Mind the gap. Move the train.

Everyone in Bonn seems to agree that we are on the implementation train now. Excellent. ECO is packed and ready to go. 

But before departure, one small question: where is this train, with new and old passengers on board, actually going? ECO wants to focus on one long-standing passenger: the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) and its destination.

The MWP was created to urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation in this critical decade. Not to admire the timetable. Not to hold endless conversations on the platform. Not to let some passengers pull the emergency brake every time science, the Global Stocktake (GST), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), sectoral transformation or finance tries to board.

The destination is not mysterious. Reducing emissions in line with 1.5°C is fundamental to the success of the Paris Agreement. The first Global Stocktake showed the scale of the gap and the need for rapid, systemic transformation. Since COP30, the implementation landscape has become busier: the Belém Action Mechanism, the Just Transition Work Programme, the Belém Mission to 1.5, the Global Implementation Accelerator, roadmaps and other initiatives can all help move climate action forward. 

But none of these replaces the need for a formal mitigation space under the UNFCCC. For now, that space is the MWP. And it must not continue to be an inconvenient waiting room.

Of course, this train must respect its mandate. The co-chairs have a real job: keep the journey facilitative, non-prescriptive, non-punitive and respectful of national circumstances. Every passenger comes with different baggage: responsibilities, capacities, development needs, finance gaps and transition challenges. Equity is not extra luggage. It is the entry ticket.

But respecting the mandate does not mean removing the engine. ECO has news: Party-driven must not mean the train does not leave the station.

Ambition is not a vibe. It has a route, a timetable and a destination.

For the MWP, that means a clear link to the GST and the next NDC cycle. It means Global Dialogues that produce usable outputs, not diplomatic travel notes: mitigation opportunities, addressing barriers, meeting the finance needs, closing the technology gaps and developing policy tools.

It means investment-focused events with follow-up, not photo opportunities. It means a strategic space focused on high-impact sectors and enabling conditions. It means unlocking the finance to implement urgently and at scale. And it means participation that is not decorative: civil society, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, people of African descent, workers, women, youth and Global South experts must help shape the journey.

A mitigation track is not useful if the train never leaves.

So yes, dear Parties: close the gap. Open the doors. Move.

***

The Court Has Spoken. Will You Deliver?

ECO has been here for a week and is starting to wonder if States have forgotten about last year’s ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Surely not. It was only a little more than a month ago when the vast majority of you welcomed that decision in the UN General Assembly. Never fear, ECO is always here to remind you about your obligations because, after all, they are fundamentally about raising ambition and ensuring justice. 

The ICJ did not merely offer another legal interpretation to file away in a cabinet. It delivered the clearest statement yet from the world’s highest court that climate change is an existential threat and that States have binding obligations under international law to prevent significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment. ECO is sure you all know about your obligations under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, but the Court affirmed that these obligations arise not only from these agreements, but also from broader principles of international law, including human rights law, the duty to prevent transboundary harm, and the obligation to protect the environment for present and future generations.

For those still hoping to hide behind vague promises and distant net-zero targets, the Court’s message was unmistakable: States must take all appropriate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, regulate activities within their jurisdiction, and cooperate internationally to address the climate crisis. Failure to do so may constitute an internationally wrongful act.

That should matter here in Bonn.

Because if the ICJ has clarified that States are legally required to prevent dangerous climate change, then every discussion under the UNFCCC must be viewed through that lens. Ambition is not simply a political choice. It is a legal obligation.

The science is clear. Global emissions continue to rise as opportunities for limiting warming to 1.5°C rapidly shrink. Every new fossil fuel project approved today, alongside continued loss and degradation of carbon-rich ecosystems, deepens the gap between what governments know they must do and what they are actually doing. 

The Court also reinforced principles long championed by developing countries like equity. Meaning that those most responsible for causing climate change bear responsibilities that reflect their historical and current contributions to the crisis. This has profound implications for climate finance, loss and damage, adaptation support, and a just transition away from fossil fuels and other climate-harming industries.

And let us not forget justice. The Court recognised that climate change threatens a range of fundamental human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water, and a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. For communities already experiencing sea-level rise, displacement, extreme weather, and loss of livelihoods, these are not abstract legal concepts. They are lived realities.

So ECO has a simple question for Parties: if you celebrated the ICJ Advisory Opinion in New York, will you act on it in Bonn?

The credibility of this process depends not on statements of welcome, but on actions that align with the law, the science, and the demands of climate justice. The ICJ has spoken. The world is watching. Now Parties must demonstrate that they were listening.