Bonn UN Climate Talks End in Gridlock Ahead of COP31

The June 2026 UN climate conference in Bonn closed on 19 June without agreement on several core agenda items, according to Carbon Brief. Negotiators failed to resolve disputes over finance architecture, adaptation priorities, and how to operationalize outcomes from the COP28 global stocktake—setting a difficult tone ahead of COP31 later this year in Antalya, Turkey.

Gridlock Over Adaptation Finance

The two-week Bonn session ended in "gridlock", with bloc divisions deepening between developed and developing nations. Climate adaptation proved one of the most contentious areas, particularly disagreement over the global goal on adaptation (GGA) and how to fund it. Developing countries sought support from wealthier nations to help protect themselves from escalating climate hazards, while developed countries resisted tying finance commitments to specific frameworks.

At COP30 in Brazil last year, parties had agreed that adaptation finance should be tripled for developing countries by 2035. However, that text lacked critical details—it did not specify the baseline for calculating the tripling, which nations must contribute, or what types of finance would count. In Bonn, developing countries including the African group, small-island states (AOSIS), least developed countries (LDCs), and the G77 and China sought to include the tripling target within the formal text on the GGA. Canada, Norway, and Japan opposed this reference, arguing that finance should be addressed under separate agenda items.

The first draft text on the GGA did not include any reference to the finance goal. After multiple revisions, a reference to tripling adaptation finance remained only in a bracketed opening paragraph—meaning the entire element remained unresolved. The entire GGA text was surrounded by square brackets, indicating it is subject to continued negotiation and agreement at COP31. Teresa Anderson, global lead on climate justice for ActionAid International, said: "It's been a huge fight to even get a soft acknowledgement of the Belém promise to triple adaptation finance, let alone a proper plan to meet that promise. It seems rich countries want to be able to quietly forget they ever said anything at all."

Adaptation Indicators Remain Contested

Beyond finance, parties also struggled with how to measure progress toward the GGA. At COP30, parties had agreed on 59 indicators to track adaptation advances, after two years of expert work. In Bonn, negotiators were tasked with creating a taskforce to establish the underlying data and methodologies for these indicators. However, disagreement emerged over whether the taskforce should be technical or political. Brazil and the European Union called for the taskforce to be expert-driven, while the Grupo Sur, like-minded developing countries (LMDCs), and the Arab group supported a party-driven taskforce. This fundamental dispute remained unresolved.

The situation reflected what experts termed a "very Groundhog Day" dynamic, where negotiators repeatedly deferred to technical experts to refine indicators while struggling with the idea of ceding political control of the process. Bethan Laughlin, senior policy specialist at the Zoological Society of London, characterized the dynamic as delegates being in "a very Groundhog Day' situation", where they were once again looking to experts to refine the indicator package, while struggling with the idea of ceding control of the process.

Adaptation Fund Governance Stalled

Negotiations over the adaptation fund also reached an impasse. The fund is in the process of transitioning to exclusively serve the Paris Agreement, which will allow it to access 5% of the revenues generated by the agreement's new carbon market under Article 6.4. A key challenge was determining the makeup of the fund's board, which currently includes members from "Annex I" and "non-Annex I" countries—a division based on development status in 1992 when the UNFCCC was established. The Paris Agreement refers instead to "developed" and "developing" countries. Observers noted concern that this could open the door for wealthier developing countries to be redefined as "developed," something some parties oppose.

Jeffrey Qi, policy advisor with the International Institute for Sustainable Development's resilience program, told Carbon Brief this was "such a politically charged issue that concerns the fundamental question of the relationship between the convention and the Paris Agreement." Parties failed to reach agreement on the board composition, deciding instead to defer discussions to COP31.

Broader Negotiation Gridlock

The adaptation impasse reflected wider stalemate across the Bonn talks. According to Carbon Brief's DeBriefed newsletter, negotiators failed to find agreement in numerous areas, including scaling up global emissions cuts and operationalizing outcomes from COP28. In the closing plenary, many diplomats lamented weakened trust in the UN climate process, as it struggled to find its footing in a new geopolitical landscape.

As parties wrapped discussions, negotiators encountered fundamental disagreements over how to integrate the COP28 global stocktake—a comprehensive assessment of progress toward Paris Agreement goals—into future work. The bloc divisions deepened over how to operationalise the global stocktake outcomes and how to treat ocean-related issues within the formal negotiating text. No agreement could be reached on the GGA. The issue was therefore subject to "rule 16"—a procedural mechanism invoked when consensus cannot be reached—and passed to COP31 without any agreed text. In the closing plenary, AOSIS expressed that the outcome was "completely unacceptable."

Ana Mulio Alvarez, policy advisor at thinktank E3G, characterized the adaptation finance standoff as a "fault line" running through the talks, with developing countries seeking concrete support while developed countries resisted specific commitments. She noted in a statement that amid worsening climate impacts, "rule 16 is more than a procedural outcome: it is a warning sign."

One Win: Just Transition Framework Advances

One area of progress involved the "Belém-Antalya mechanism for global just transitions" (BAM), intended to provide a centralised hub to support just transitions for workers and communities around the world. COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago pointed to the mechanism as a key "legacy" of the previous conference. In Bonn, on 16 June, co-chairs introduced a draft text with a "non-exhaustive" list on how to take the mechanism forward, covering context, purpose, functions integration, coordination and coherence, barriers and opportunities, international cooperation, modalities and governance, timelines and links to the just transition work programme.

Parties, including Latin American countries under AILAC, Brazil, Norway, AOSIS, and the African group, welcomed the note as the basis for further negotiations. However, the Arab group pushed back, saying the text did not reflect its priorities. The mechanism still requires further development, but the emergence of a substantive draft represented rare momentum in an otherwise stalled agenda.

Ocean Issues Enter Formal Negotiations

Ocean-related climate action also featured prominently at the Bonn talks. A two-day dialogue involved panels, statements, and breakout groups on how oceans are integrated into national climate plans under the Paris Agreement, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Three-quarters of the latest round of NDCs mention oceans, with conservation of "blue carbon" ecosystems—such as mangroves that absorb CO2 and protect coastal areas—the most frequently described action.

Delegates discussed alignment with the UN biodiversity process, as well as ocean finance, which currently makes up less than 1% of all climate finance. Developing countries were clear that ocean-related actions in their NDCs would depend on receiving more financial support. Charles Hamilton, an advisor for the Bahamas speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), told Carbon Brief that island representatives "are not traveling thousands of miles to just talk and pat ourselves on the back." He said "discussions in the dialogue must move into COP decisions and the decisions must be actioned", noting the importance of finance.

With the backing of the COP31 presidency—co-led by Turkey and Australia with Pacific islands playing a supporting role—delegates expressed hope that the dialogue could lead to concrete outcomes. Marina Corrêa, oceans lead at WWF-Brazil, called for the presidencies to translate their support into a "leader-level ocean initiative" that could "mainstream" oceans across negotiations. "We have a really interesting opportunity, in terms of political momentum," she told Carbon Brief.

Attacks on Climate Science Noted

Throughout the Bonn talks, the EU, Switzerland, and dozens of developing nations warned of "attacks on science" by a "small group of fossil-fuels interests." Multiple sources reported concerns that the 1.5C target was "increasingly being challenged" and the role of the UN climate-science panel—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—in an upcoming assessment of global climate progress "remains controversial." The framing reflected deeper anxieties among climate-conscious delegations about the erosion of scientific consensus in formal negotiations.

Road to COP31

With the Bonn agenda items unresolved, the stakes for COP31 in Antalya are now significantly higher. The failed agreements on adaptation finance, GGA indicators, and adaptation fund governance represent critical unfinished business. According to Carbon Brief's reporting, many diplomats left Bonn expressing concern about weakened trust in the UN climate process itself, signaling that the political fault lines exposed in Germany will intensify as parties prepare for the December summit.

The gridlock also reflects broader geopolitical uncertainties affecting climate diplomacy. While some delegations described energy policy discussions at the Bonn talks as reflecting a "new era" shaped by ongoing disruption to fossil fuel supply chains, firm commitments on emissions cuts remained elusive. The tension between developed and developing nations over financial responsibility—the core issue blocking agreement in Bonn—will dominate COP31 negotiations, with developing countries likely to escalate demands for concrete, quantified finance commitments tied to measurable adaptation outcomes.