Thursday 26th June
By Colm Fahy, Ecology Advocacy Officer, Jesuit European Social Centre
And that’s a wrap… almost!
The SB conferences are all about preparing for the next COP, and the final day of SB62 was our chance to ask: is the world ready for COP30? The answer, predictably, is a mixed one.
At the Climate Action Network International (CAN) press conference, we were told a successful day would involve three texts being adopted and taken forward to COP30: on Adaptation, Just Transition, and the Global Stocktake. While a draft text emerged for Just Transition and adaptation indicators progressed significantly, the Global Stocktake dialogue saw limited advancement. I personally witnessed frantic, last-minute discussions between EU and Saudi Arabian delegates over the text’s caveat during the closing session of that dialogue!
Throughout SB62, climate finance remained a major sticking point, and unfortunately, the text on Loss and Damage goes towards COP30 with more work still to be done. As the conference closed, many participants commented to each other, “See you in Belém” – a familiar farewell for those on the relentless merry-go-round of international climate negotiations. However, beneath these gestures lay a great worry about Belém, as rumours circulated the conference hall questioning whether this small Amazonian city is truly prepared to host COP30.
That’s yet to be seen. Many thanks for following these personal reflections, and indeed, see you again for our coverage of Belém!
Wednesday 25th June
By Colm Fahy, Ecology Advocacy Officer, Jesuit European Social Centre
Time is ticking, and as always with these sorts of negotiations, there’s a lot left to do at the last minute. This was perfectly demonstrated at a consultation I attended on the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for Loss and Damage, where a draft agreement for approval at COP30 is in its final stages of completion.
At the end of the session, there was a request to extend the conversation for a further ten minutes, which caused some debate amongst the moderators. Even after almost two weeks of working on this text, and countless hours dedicated to it in the evenings and in between sessions, a mere ten minutes more was still needed to reach a consensus.
Press conferences have also highlighted the intensity of these closing negotiations. Greenpeace, for instance, pointed out the striking fact that this is the first international climate conference in 30 years where the USA has not sent any delegation.
This certainly underscores the need for other countries to unite to ensure climate justice, but is that actually happening? The European Union, a powerful bloc of nations that could potentially step into the USA’s shoes, hasn’t even submitted its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) yet!
Throughout this conference, however, there’s a palpable optimism about COP30. Will the fact that Brazil, a country intrinsically linked to the Amazon and rich in indigenous traditions, inspire concrete climate action and, hopefully, a greater sense of urgency?
Tuesday 24th June
By Colm Fahy, Ecology Advocacy Officer, Jesuit European Social Centre
The two words that struck me most on day two of the second week of SB62 were: unity and adaptation.
Firstly, “adaptation” was quite literally the word of the conference, with tense negotiations continuing on how to further define and track progress towards the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). This is particularly challenging regarding the development of a robust set of indicators. It has, perhaps predictably, become a point of division between national delegations from the Global North and those from the Global South. Negotiations are ongoing.
Secondly, and in stark contrast, I observed significant unity within the Catholic delegation. This group, comprising members of religious orders, civil society organisations, and bishops, has been meeting informally throughout the conference. Despite their diverse backgrounds, spanning both the Global North and Global South, their message is unified: UNFCCC processes must serve the world’s poorest, who suffer most from climate change.
This unity was powerfully demonstrated at the Jesuits for Climate Justice event in the evening. The discussion, led by experts Dr. Jörg Alt SJ and Dr. Samuel Zewdie Hagos, focused on climate change and migration – a topic seldom addressed at these negotiations, yet one of growing urgency.
The lively discussion that followed the presentations highlighted a strong sense of unity among the Catholic actors present at these conferences, reinforcing the Catholic Church’s role in giving a voice to the voiceless.
Monday 23rd June
By Colm Fahy, Ecology Advocacy Officer, Jesuit European Social Centre
It’s officially week two of SB62 here in Bonn, and I’m excited to share that we have some new faces joining the Jesuits for Climate Justice team! I’m here representing JESC (Jesuit European Social Centre), attending the talks alongside Filipe Martins SJ. Last week was a bit intense, with many of the discussions getting pretty detailed and complicated.
One big discussion that’s still going on is about something called the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP). This was a point we couldn’t quite agree on back at the last big climate meeting (COP29), and we’re really trying to get a final agreement here to officially start the program.
In a nutshell, the JTWP is all about making sure that as we shift to cleaner energy and ways of doing things, it’s done in a way that’s fair and includes everyone. It’s about ensuring nobody gets left behind and that we help workers and communities adapt to these changes.
You’d think this would be something everyone could agree on, but unfortunately, there’s been a lot of disagreement. Essentially, countries that are still developing want the program to guarantee that this green shift is fair for them, with the necessary financial help and without unfair trade rules getting in the way.
On the other hand, wealthier countries are leaning towards a plan that focuses more on a quick move to a low-carbon world, without getting bogged down in specific financial promises or trade disagreements within this particular program.
Beyond the main negotiation rooms, today was packed with some really interesting side events. One that particularly stood out focused on people being forced to move from their homes because of climate change.
The numbers shared were truly shocking – for example, a massive 83 million people had to move within their own countries in 2024 alone. These meetings also offer fantastic opportunities to connect with other faith groups.
Today, we had a really nice lunch meeting where various faith groups came together, all emphasizing that it’s a moral duty for our organisations to push for strong action on climate change at these important gatherings.
It’s certainly been a busy and engaging start to week two!
Saturday 21st June
By Richard Solly, Campaigns & Advocacy Officer, Jesuit Missions
At the end of the first week of a conference characterised by the continuing reluctance of the rich countries which have caused the climate crisis to stump up anything approaching the amount of money needed to tackle it, it was bizarre to sit through several meetings in which country delegations quibbled over the minutiae of texts.
In general all developing countries, including those which have recently become relatively prosperous, are united in their insistence that developed countries fulfil their financial obligations under the Paris Agreement of 2015; but a dispute broke out between China and the Arab Group of Nations on one side and the Least Developed Countries and the European Union on the other about whether to ‘welcome’ or simply ‘take note of’ the notes of a previous meeting.
While the discussion continued I was wondering how long it will be before the rapid loss of glaciers in the Alps slows the summer flow of the nearby River Rhine to a trickle, and whether the discussion was really helping effective climate action.
A dialogue between the Chairs of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body of Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) and Observer Groups (including us Jesuits, though we did not speak because large groupings of organisations spoke first, and we ran out of time) was more enlivening. Many concerns were raised.
One was the difficulty caused to so many delegates by the fact that all business was in English and at most sessions no interpretation was available. The Chairs agreed, explaining that United Nations budget cuts were to blame. This is very disempowering for many civil society organisations; as are the frequent delays in the agenda caused by disputes between countries, meaning that there is no time for Observers to speak and posing the danger that there will be insufficient time for agreement to be reached on some agenda items, including the Gender Action Plan.
Friends in Caritas Internationalis and SCIAF (Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund) held a side event on ‘Holistic Climate Action’ which considered hopeful examples of agroecological agriculture making life better for small-scale farmers and building resilience and adaptability in the face of a changing climate.
It was good to end the first week on a note of hope: it had not been a hopeful week, and I had felt disgust at the way the most wealthy continued to use their power to prevent ‘the Wretched of the Earth’ from achieving justice. The struggle continues!
Friday 20th June
By Richard Solly, Campaigns & Advocacy Officer, Jesuit Missions
On Friday 20th June, the 5th day of the SB62 talks, members of the Network of Catholic Climate and Environment Actors (NCCEA) met with the delegation sent by the Holy See (the Vatican). Policy experts within the NCCEA summarised our main concerns:
1 NDC Ambition
‘Nationally Determined Contributions are the plans that countries make to reduce their carbon emissions. Some countries’ plans are very impressive – like those of low-lying island Vanuatu – but many lack ambition and most have yet to be submitted in the current round. We requested that the Holy See should submit its own plan soon.
2 Just Transition
There is an urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy that would violate nobody’s rights and leave nobody behind.
3 Climate finance
We stressed the need for sufficient public, grant-based finance to be provided by developed countries to developing countries, and for cancellation of unjust and unpayable debt to be part of this.
4 Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage
There is an urgent need for the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage to receive sufficient money to make a difference.
5 The need for action for Climate Empowerment
There is a need to ensure that countries are enabled to do that they need to do to take action on climate change, including through climate education.
6 Food systems transformation and agroecology
We said that a global food sovereignty system is needed based on culturally adapted modes of production, transformation, distribution, and food consumption, applying ecological principles to agriculture.
7 Way forward on preparing for COP30
We spoke of the need to ensure that Catholic organisations and the Church in Brazil co-ordinate practical arrangements for the COP 30 talks in November in Belem, Brazil.
The Holy See delegation welcomed the opportunity to hear from us all and stressed the need for education on climate change to take place everywhere and at all levels so that people realise the urgency of the need to take action. It emphasised the need for debt cancellation and spoke of Pope Francis’ urgent call for this in his proclamation of the Jubilee Year. And it observed that Just Transition has to be something other than a technocratic exercise but be based instead on what the Church calls Integral Ecology, taking all our relationships with each other and other life forms into account. The meeting ended with fervent prayer for peace in the world.
Further meetings between NCCEA and the Holy See delegation will take place before the COP30 talks.
Thursday 19th June
By Cristóbal Emilfork SJ
A large part of the discussions taking place in the dozens of meeting rooms at SB62 focus on money. Indeed, it is an essential component of conversations on “Loss and Damage” for countries most affected by the critical effects of climate change.
However, focusing so much on finances means that other dimensions of damage are obscured. That is what a group of faith-based organizations aimed to highlight today, organizing an event to discuss NELD: Non-Economic Loss and Damage.
When we talk about NELD, we refer, for example, to the damage to rituals and traditions that form part of a people’s cultural heritage, the dispersion of communities that are forced to migrate, the anxiety and trauma that is generated primarily among children and young people, as well as the sacred bond that exists between many peoples and the land they inhabit, which cannot be exchanged for another ground.
Certainly, money is required to meet many of these needs. But that is not all. Money is not an end in itself but a means to an end. It must be accompanied by empathy, mercy, and a series of values and attitudes that truly aim to transform this society.
The voices of institutions related to various spiritualities and religions must find a place in these forums, where haste and urgency sometimes cause us to forget that behind all this, there are human and non-human lives at stake.
Wednesday 18th June
By Cristóbal Emilfork SJ
It is the third day of the Bonn Climate Conference – but actually, it is the first day of negotiations. I state this because it took almost two full journeys for the parties to agree on the agenda for this preparatory meeting, which is supposed to set the precedent for COP30.
One obvious consequence of this is that time and space seem even more limited for steering the packed list of key issues toward a successful conclusion. Beyond the confines of this meeting – the days are running out to come up with answers to the climate emergency – especially for those who are already suffering the worst repercussions.
There are so many issues and points under discussion that everyone has to form alliances. Countries form interest groups through which they can better represent their often divergent interests; constituencies do the same, finding strategies to amplify and perhaps make their messages more effective.
Everything is transformed into a space for discussion and negotiation, where expectations must be put into play through links that must be dynamic and flexible if they are to survive.
In a way, this reminds me of the logic of alliances in nature and the fact that we are all connected, as are our actions. I know it’s cliché, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
Alliances, in general, can be forged for a wide range of objectives and with positive or even spurious intentions. I wonder how we can establish links that can actually help us leverage faster and better?
How can we successfully structure the actions we need to act effectively (but not recklessly) and in a qualified and more sustainable way; successfully address this challenge that affects us all, without distinction.
Tuesday 17th June
By Richard Solly, Campaigns & Advocacy Officer, Jesuit Missions
A press conference on Palestine at 10am noted that under the UN climate agreements, governments do not have to report on carbon emissions from their military activity and that carbon emissions resulting from the war in Gaza far outstrip the total emissions of dozens of countries. Military spending in 2023 was apparently 2.44 trillion US dollars – yet developed countries quibble over providing 1.3 trillion dollars a year for climate mitigation and adaptation.
I moved on to a side event on Climate Stories from the Global South. Here we heard about the huge gap between the UNFCCC definition of ‘climate finance’, supported by developing countries, and the understanding held by developed countries.
The first holds that developed countries are obliged to provide funds to developing countries to reduce their carbon emissions and adapt to climate change. The second includes any kind of money from anywhere, including profit-driven loans from private institutions.
Much information was provided about the Adaptation Fund, the Global Climate Fund and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage. These funds have in common that the sums pledged are wholly inadequate and that the sums provided fall far short of what has been pledged.
The delayed opening plenary session was due to begin at 11am, so I hurried to the main meeting room – only to be kept waiting for 40 minutes before an announcement was made that it was postponed until 1pm. So I attended another side meeting: ‘Forging synergies for people and planet – transformative actions for a just and sustainable future’, held jointly by the UNFCCC and other UN agencies.
It looked at the social, environmental and financial benefits of a joined-up approach to UN agreements on Climate, Biodiversity and the Sustainable Development Goals. Three reports are to be published in July looking at the role of finance, including insurance, in tackling climate change, biodiversity loss and catastrophic disasters; the connection between climate action and human health in cities; and the link between conservation, sustainable development and climate action.
The supposed 1pm beginning of the delayed opening plenary was postponed until 3pm. So I attended a useful interfaith networking meeting, then hurried to the 3pm postponed delayed beginning of the opening plenary, but it had been delayed until 4pm; then until 5pm.
Meanwhile, forests burnt and glaciers melted and sea levels rose… But at last, at 5pm, the Chairs of the two Subsidiary Bodies, SBI and SBSTA, announced that after days of negotiations, a compromise agenda had been agreed. From various comments made by National Delegations, it was clear that developed countries had been unwilling to address the funding concerns of developing countries, who were justifiably angry.
The power of money asserted itself as always. But at least negotiations can now continue on many of the substantive issues, and not simply on the agenda itself. That seemed like a small sign of hope.
Monday 16th June
By Richard Solly, Campaigns & Advocacy Officer, Jesuit Missions
Arriving at my first ever climate talks on the feast day of my patron saint, St Richard of Chichester, might have felt propitious, but it did not. I was late, because of train delays (I missed the protests in solidarity with Gaza as well as the planned time for the beginning of business).
The weather felt tropical in its heat and humidity. And the day’s official business, the beginning of the SB62 conference, was continually put back because of disagreements over the agenda.
I was reminded of Pope Francis’ words in his Encyclical Letter, Laudato Si: ‘The failure of global summits on the environment make it plain that our politics are subject to technology and finance. There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good…’ (Laudato Si 54)
A key reason for the differences of position which prevented many of the hoped-for agreements at the COP29 climate talks in Baku last November was money. Those who have it do not wish to give it to those who need it.
As Pope Francis pointed out: ‘A true “ecological debt” exists, particularly between the global north and south, connected to commercial imbalances with effects on the environment, and the disproportionate use of natural resources by certain countries over long periods of time…. The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries has repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa, where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved devastating for farming.’ (LS 51)
These disagreements are still preventing progress. As one of my colleagues in the Network of Catholic Climate and Environment Actors mused, “I wonder how the end will be if we start like this.”
Since the opening plenary seemed delayed indefinitely, I attended a side meeting about climate migration, which is also the subject of our Jesuit event to be held on Tuesday 24th June at 6.30pm CET and livestreamed.
Again, Laudato Si specifially mentions this matter: ‘There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognised by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever.
‘Sadly, there is a widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.’ (LS 25)
We heard, among other things, about the millions of cattle which have died as a result of drought in Kenya in recent years and the thousands of people displaced first as a result of this destruction of their herding livelihood and then by the destruction of homes caused by devastating floods which followed the drought – ominous changes in weather patterns which are clearly a result of a changing climate.
It is to address such events that the Loss and Damage Fund has been established – but as contributors to the event pointed out, even if the Loss and Damage Fund works, it will provide money to affected communities. How do you put a financial value on the loss of a way of life, of a place full of memories and the remains of ancestors, of a community that has lived together for generations, when people are forced to move?
Addressing ‘non-financial losses’ caused by climate chaos may be even more difficult than addressing financial losses. This human pain and suffering needs to be kept in mind by those who cling to their wealth when it plainly needs to be shared, or to a way of life which damages the climate, when it needs to be left behind.
As Pope Francis wrote: ‘We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalisation of indifference.’ (LS 52)