{"id":5908,"date":"2025-06-26T07:50:10","date_gmt":"2025-06-26T07:50:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.powershiftafrica.org\/blogs\/sb-60-versus-sb-62-lessons-from-the-past"},"modified":"2026-09-28T14:14:33","modified_gmt":"2026-09-28T14:14:33","slug":"sb-60-versus-sb-62-lessons-from-the-past","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/blogs\/sb-60-versus-sb-62-lessons-from-the-past\/","title":{"rendered":"SB 60 contre SB 62 : Le\u00e7ons du pass\u00e9 et pi\u00e8ges \u00e0 \u00e9viter"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The annual Bonn climate talks shape the agenda of the Conference of Parties (COP) later in the year. Whether the COP succeeds or fails largely hinges on the outcomes of the meeting of Subsidiary Bodies, known as the SBs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is for this reason that SB 60 in Bonn in 2024 was described by climate experts as a monumental failure, notably due to slow progress and sharp divisions on critical issues such as climate finance, which fueled discontent from developing countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On many levels, COP 29 in Baku failed to deliver on crucial topics because of the failures of Bonn that year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This year\u2019s SB 62 appears to have borrowed the script from SB 60, if the delayed start to the process is anything to go by.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On this last day of the Bonn climate talks, can SB 62 shake off the shortcomings of past editions to anchor COP 30 in Brazil on a path to success? And what pitfalls must SB 62 avoid in these dying moments to deliver for the people and the planet?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last year, the main battleground was climate finance, as it is this year. In Bonn in 2024, rich nations were accused of foot-dragging, frustrating efforts to reach an agreement on how the world would finance climate action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Mohamed Adow, negotiators from the Global North undermined the key outcomes of COP28. \u2018\u2018Developed countries are backtracking on their commitments made in Dubai to accelerate discussions around climate finance,\u2019\u2019 said the director of Power Shift Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018\u2018Rich countries have always dragged their feet when it comes to paying their fair share to tackle the climate crisis \u2013 a crisis their emissions have caused,\u2019\u2019 added Adow, describing developed countries\u2019 approach at SB 60 as \u2018\u2018simply unacceptable\u2019\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adow\u2019s sentiments were shared by Mariana Paoli, the Global Advocacy Lead at Christian Aid. Ms Paoli said at the time: \u201cThe lack of progress on the finance negotiations is very disappointing. Rich countries to step up and deliver their financial commitments.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paoli said that after two years of negotiations on the NCQG, developed countries had still not shown how much money they are willing to commit. And at SB 60, this was not done either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At COP 29, developed countries committed only $300 billion in climate finance under the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), a fraction of the $1.3 trillion demanded by developing countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Said Adow after the outcome: \u2018\u2018COP29 has been a disaster for the developing world. It\u2019s a betrayal of both people and planet, by wealthy countries who claim to take climate change seriously.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his assessment, Adow said Baku would be remembered \u2018\u2018for enabling rich polluters to cheat their way out of actual emission reductions\u2019\u2019 using dubious pollution permit markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Global Stocktake and Just Transition<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another failure of Bonn 2024 was on the Global Stocktake (GST). Other than what Marine Pouget described as \u2018\u2018a long list of statements\u2019\u2019 SB 60 yielded minimal progress in making Nationally Determined Contributions more ambitious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018\u2018We need climate action, not a climate talk shop. We hope the Global Stocktake UAE Dialogue will bring the ambition we need to keep 1.5\u00b0C alive,\u201d said Ms Pouget, the Global Governance Policy Advisor at Climate Action Network, France.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Little surprise that the first Global Stocktake (GST) lacked a conclusive outcome later that year in Baku at COP29.\u202fParties did not reach a consensus on how to move forward with the GST outcomes or advance the Just Transition Work Programme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The GST process, as mandated by the Paris Agreement, aims to evaluate collective progress by countries towards climate goals, including limiting emissions to 1.5C degrees below pre-industrial levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adaptation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the adaptation front, progress was slow at SB 60 as countries failed to agree on who should lead the work on identifying and developing the GGA indicators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SB60 saw discussions on the implementation of the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), but limited resources and capacity constraints hindrered concrete outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NAPs are country blueprints for implementing adaptation interventions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the Bonn climate talks in 2024, failure to secure sufficient finance for adaptation, particularly for African countries, was highlighted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This year, As the world waits for adaptation outcomes from the Bonn climate talks, the all-too-familiar delaying tactics have once again rocked progress on the NAPs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the negotiation rooms, frustration has been evident among parties from developing countries, with hope fast fading on the possibility of a substantive outcome on NAPs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Articles 4.7 of the Convention and\u202f9.1 require developed countries to ensure the transfer of technology and other means of implementation (finance and capacity building) to developing countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At SB 62, wealthy nations have been unwilling to engage on any paragraphs that have conditionalities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the need to scale up adaptation finance remains a critical priority, especially for developing countries, the push to have a new adaptation finance goal at SB 62 failed to gain momentum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

GGA and GGA indicators<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At SB60, the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) saw some progress parties but lack of finance to implement the indicators was a key failure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Developing countries emphasised the need for public finance to support adaptation efforts, with some quarters dismissing the GGA as an \u2018\u2018empty shell\u2019\u2019 without the means of implementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At COP 29, negotiators agreed to develop 100 indicators to measure adaptation progress and also launched the Baku Adaptation Road Map. Divisions regarding financial mechanisms and implementation strategies, however, emerged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Bonn this year, negotiators are still tussling on the number and quality of indicators, with the main work being to trim the current indicators from 409 down to about 100.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are also efforts to ensure the GGA indicators are \u2018\u2018technically sound and scientifically robust\u2019\u2019 according to Lina Adil, a policy advisor on adaptation and loss and damage at Germanwatch. Ms Adil emphasises that this process shouldn\u2019t be merely a technical one as witnessed in past climate talks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018\u2018There\u2019s a crucial need to engage with the future of the GGA on a political level,\u2019\u2019 Ms Adil notes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She adds: \u2018\u2018This needs to start in Bonn and continue in Belem. At COP 30, we expect the work programme to adopt the indicators but also to guide the implementation, both at the global and local levels.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women and Gender<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At SB 60, the lack of progress and the untimely distractions eroded trust, ultimately disrupting an ambitious Work Programme on Gender.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Later that year at COP29, the gender work experienced a deadlock. The COP had been seen as critical for the implementation of the Lima Work Programme on Gender and its Gender Action Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Ndivile Mokoena, the coordinator of Gender CC South Africa, parties failed to agree on the means of implementation and language on human rights, intersectionality and diversity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, COP 29 delivered an extended Enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender for the next 10 years, with plans to establish a Gender Action Plan (GAP) at COP30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018\u2018This is not good at all,\u2019\u2019 said Ms Mokeona at the time. \u2018\u2018It means we are starting all over again whereas we were supposed to implement what has been discussed all the years together with workshops conducted.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The GAP is set to advance gender equality and women\u2019s empowerment in the UNFCCC processes and help to foster gender-transformative climate action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parties agreed to start developing the GAP at SB62, with the aim of recommending a draft decision for consideration and adoption at COP30. In Bonn, a mandated workshop took place during SB 62 to facilitate the design of gender action plan activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once again, the process faced pushback on the language of gender diversity, human rights, and environmental rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Experts will continue to work on the text before COP 30.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The SB 60\u2019s in 2024 was described by climate experts as a monumental failure, notably because of slow progress and sharp divisions on critical issues such as climate finance. This year\u2019s SB 62 appears to have borrowed the script, if the delayed start to the process is anything to go by.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":48,"featured_media":5909,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[28],"topic":[],"class_list":["post-5908","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blogs","tag-adaptation"],"acf":{"url":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5908","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/48"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5908"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5908\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6710,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5908\/revisions\/6710"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5909"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5908"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5908"},{"taxonomy":"topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?post=5908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}