Bonn Climate Change Conference | Concern Worldwide

The informal consultations on the Baku to Belém: A roadmap to $1.3 trillion exposed deep divisions between developed and developing countries on climate finance priorities. Developed countries emphasized private sector mobilization, enabling environments, and innovative financing tools, while developing countries and stakeholders focused on the quality and accessibility of finance, debt burdens, and unmet commitments—especially the overdue $100 billion pledge and the $300 billion needed for adaptation. A key concern raised was that over half of climate finance is debt-based, exacerbating vulnerability, with only 15% reaching developing countries due to risk-averse investment patterns. Least Developed Countries, SIDS, and African nations argued that climate finance must prioritize grants, concessional funding, and direct access mechanisms to uphold climate justice, equity, and historical responsibility. They called for a rights-based, country-driven approach aligned with NDCs and NAPs. In contrast, developed countries framed the roadmap as an implementation strategy focused on leveraging private capital and improving financial instruments. Stakeholders also highlighted systemic access barriers, high transaction costs, and a financial system shaped by colonial legacies and fiscal austerity, stressing that the core issue is not capacity but a lack of political will to reform this architecture. Now we must wait for the report – by the COP29 and the COP30 presidency- due in September to understand what the shape of this roadmap will be. 

The Sharm el-Sheikh Dialogue was established at COP27 to help countries explore the scope of Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement (making financial flows consistent with low-emission, climate-resilient development) and how it complements Article 9 (climate finance provision from developed to developing countries). The first workshop under this dialogue took place at SB62 in 2025. Within these discussions, developing countries and civil society are pushing for a mandate to radically reform the international financial architecture so that it genuinely serves climate-resilient development. They are calling for time-bound targets that would shift financial flows away from fossil fuels, address debt distress, and link climate finance to broader UN debt reform processes. Additionally, there are demands to tax major polluters—such as the fossil fuel industry, aviation sector, and the ultra-wealthy—under a proposed UN tax convention.

However, much of the discussion time was dominated by the private sector, with presentations from financial institutions, insurance companies, asset managers, and industry lobbyists. These actors offered tailored examples of how the private sector could contribute—often emphasizing profit-driven solutions over people-centred approaches and promising short-term macroeconomic stability instead of long-term climate justice. As a result, developing countries are justifiably concerned about the direction of the Article 2.1(c) discussions. A formal report will be produced ahead of COP30, but many fear it may prioritize private sector interests and macroeconomic narratives over equitable, public-centred climate finance solutions.