Over 9,000 people attended the 2026 June Climate Meetings. Some of them share their thoughts on the negotiations and their outcomes for specific target areas, and the way forward.
Lisa Nyamadzawo: Urban Planning Professional and Specialist in International Development Planning
Cities are crucial because they not only generate 70% of greenhouse gas emissions but also where people live, making them an effective place to mitigate or cut emissions. Resilient and sustainable infrastructure will withstand the impacts of climate change and reduce emissions from the construction and operation of cities’ infrastructure. The new global target announced during SB64 aims to “reduce energy consumption intensity in the building sector by at least 25 per cent by 2035.” But a city’s emissions extend beyond buildings. Sectors such as public transport, waste management, water and sanitation also need attention. Some targets already address this, but there needs to be clearer coordination.
Subnational governments (cities, towns, states, and regions) are key players in implementing this target. At SB 64, the LGMA constituency advocated for a whole-of-government, multilevel governance approach, pushing for subnational governments to be engaged from the outset. COP 31 in Antalya will be a critical moment to ensure that planners are fully recognised as key actors in achieving the climate goals at both the local and international levels, and that the references to multi-level action are taken forward and prioritised under the climate resilient cities target.
With extreme weather events such as heatwaves, cyclones, flooding, promoting energy efficiency and nature-based solutions will go a long way in strengthening the adaptive capacity of cities. Resilient infrastructure that anticipates weather fluctuations will protect vulnerable communities from loss and damage.
Brenda Mwale: Technical expert on Loss and Damage and Negotiator on Loss and Damage
SB64 did not have an agenda item on Loss and Damage, but this does not mean that communities have paused in facing the catastrophic impacts of climate change. Loss and Damage continued to be discussed under different agenda items like the Climate Finance Work Programme, Global Stocktake, and Mountains and Climate Change. SB64 marked an important step in strengthening the ecosystem for Loss and Damage finance and support, considering at the forthcoming ninth Board meeting of the FRLD in July, where the Board is expected to consider the first funding requests under the Fund’s early start-up phase. Discussions highlighted the growing complementarity between the Warsaw International Mechanism, the Santiago Network, and the FRLD, with a stronger focus on translating knowledge into action, enhancing access to finance, and supporting countries in addressing both economic and non-economic loss and damage. Equally significant was the recognition that resilience is built through knowledge, learning, and capacity development. Across adaptation and Loss and Damage discussions, parties and constituted bodies emphasised technical assistance, local capacity, intergenerational knowledge transfer, and inclusive participation as essential foundations for climate resilience. For African countries facing escalating climate impacts, these outcomes reinforce the need to invest in education, skills development, and community-led solutions that empower young people as agents of resilience and recovery.
Looking ahead to COP31, these outcomes and discussion provide a critical platform for advancing a more inclusive and people-centered climate agenda to elevate the Loss and Damage agenda. The growing emphasis on the meaningful engagement of youth, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities demonstrates a shift from consultation to co-design, ensuring that those most affected by climate impacts help shape solutions. For African youth, COP31 presents an opportunity to translate these discussions into concrete commitments that strengthen access to Loss and Damage finance, scale climate education and capacity-building initiatives, and embed youth leadership across implementation and decision-making processes. If carried forward with ambition, the progress made at SB64 can help ensure that COP31 delivers not only stronger institutions and finance mechanisms but also lasting resilience for vulnerable communities and future generations.
Shimukunku Manchishi: Senior Policy Officer for Trade at the African Future Policies Hub, and a trade advisor to the African Group of Negotiators.
SB64 in Bonn concluded with a few tangible outcomes amidst ongoing side-stepping and stalling. This was largely driven by geopolitical tensions that reflect a growing global divide that threatens trust in the foundations of the UN climate process. From the meetings, one could sense that there is broad agreement on the need for climate action. However, the process to achieve that remains touchy.
On trade specifically, the Bonn talks featured the highly anticipated first dialogue, focusing on how trade can support climate action while addressing concerns from developing countries about trade-related climate measures creating burdens and barriers. Despite tensions, the dialogue itself was more cordial than expected. Developing Countries highlighted matters of equity and compliance costs and uneven impacts from trade related climate measures. Developed countries defended these measures as necessary for addressing environmental externalities, while others called for fairness and transparency.
There was a contentious issue on reporting the outcomes of the dialogue. Developed countries argued that the COP30 mandate was for one report after the third dialogue while Developing countries gave a rationale for a report from the first dialogue. After seeking a legal opinion, diplomats committed to prepare an informal note (with no legal standing) summarising the dialogue. Trade also surfaced in the just transition work programme, where it was more antagonistic reflecting ongoing divisions over trade’s role in climate efforts.
