Developing Nations Clash With EU At Bonn Climate Talks

The mid-year United Nations climate negotiations opened in Bonn on June 16, 2025, but immediately ran into a major roadblock. The first day of the 62nd session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was marked by a delay in the adoption of the official agenda, as developing countries clashed with developed nations—particularly the European Union and its allies—over the inclusion of key issues concerning climate finance and unilateral trade measures.

The Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group, which includes India, had submitted proposals to add two new items to the official agenda. The first focused on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which obligates developed countries to provide financial support to developing nations for climate action. The second concerned the increasing use of unilateral trade mechanisms like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which developing countries view as protectionist and in violation of the principles of the UNFCCC.

The Article 9.1 agenda item aimed to establish a formal track to discuss the implementation of climate finance commitments in a manner that ensured “additionality, predictability, concessionality, and transparency” in public climate finance from developed countries. This demand followed the outcome of COP29 in Baku, where the new climate finance framework—the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG)—was established, promising $300 billion per year in climate finance from 2025 onward. However, that decision was primarily built on Article 9.3 of the Paris Agreement, which calls for the “mobilization” of finance, largely from private or blended sources. The LMDC bloc argued that this approach sidestepped Article 9.1, which emphasizes direct public funding by developed countries, a more accountable and dependable source for the developing world.

The second item proposed by LMDC dealt with what it called the increasing politicization and unilateralism of climate policy, specifically targeting measures like CBAM. The group called for a reaffirmation of the UNFCCC’s cooperative principles and urged Parties to denounce trade-restrictive climate measures that have negative cross-border impacts. This concern was not new—similar efforts to introduce the issue had been made by the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) at COP29 but were blocked by the EU.

Despite broad support from the entire G77 and China bloc, which represents over 130 developing countries, the EU and allied developed nations resisted both proposals. The impasse forced the conference to delay the formal adoption of the agenda, stalling the start of negotiations and pushing discussions into closed-door consultations for nearly 48 hours. No compromise was offered by the EU, resulting in significant frustration among developing country delegates.

Eventually, late in the evening on June 17, the SB Chairs reconvened the plenary and announced a partial resolution. The proposal on Article 9.1 was withdrawn, but the Chairs promised that the substance of the issue would still be discussed during SB62 through “substantive consultations.” These discussions, they said, would culminate in a report at the next session, SB63, during COP30 in Belem, Brazil, where a decision might be taken on whether to include it as a standalone agenda item.

As for the trade-related proposal, Parties agreed to withdraw it from the agenda on the understanding that it would be addressed under other relevant tracks, including the Just Transition Work Programme. A footnote will be added to the Just Transition agenda item, noting that “related issues will be among the issues to be discussed” within that programme.

These announcements did little to ease tensions. Bolivia, speaking on behalf of the LMDC, along with India, expressed strong disappointment at what they saw as developed countries’ reluctance to engage on core responsibilities. Nigeria echoed these concerns, emotionally referencing Article 9.1 as being intrinsic to the Convention’s very foundation, saying it “speaks to the blood of the Convention.”

With the agenda finally adopted by the close of Day 2, formal negotiations resumed on Day 3. Discussions began on key themes including the Just Transition Work Programme, the UAE Dialogue under the Global Stocktake process, the Baku to Belem Roadmap on climate finance, and the Sharm El-Sheikh Dialogue on Article 2.1(c), which focuses on aligning finance flows with climate goals.

The early friction at Bonn has highlighted deep and ongoing divisions between developed and developing countries over climate finance and equity in climate action. As the negotiations continue through June 26, all eyes will be on how these contentious issues evolve and whether a bridge can be built before COP30 in Brazil, where decisions on the future of climate finance—and climate cooperation—are expected to take more definitive shape.