Did anything actually happen at SB62? Technically, yes.

But did something happen at the Bonn climate talks that gives the world more confidence about much-needed, game-changing decisions at COP30 in Brazil? Unfortunately, no.

The two-week climate conference felt like a replay of a tired old album – only this time, the notes were painfully off-key.

Negotiations moved at their patented snail’s pace, with Parties struggling to agree on details across multiple issues. Under the direction of the COP30 Presidency, many eyes were on developments related to the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), and the Global Stocktake (GST).

Intersessionals are known as the nitty-gritty phase of climate talks, where Parties argue over the technical details of texts to be finalized at COP As expected, even with just three priorities, there are still disagreements among Parties that will have to be settled in Belém.

Should ‘transformational adaptation’ be emphasized under the GGA?
What exactly falls under the broad mandate of a just transition?
When will the much-celebrated COP28 decision to transition away from fossil fuels see any real follow-up?

Ironically, the biggest roadblock was the very thing that enables climate action: finance.

Every time progress seemed within reach, talks circled back to the same fundamental divide. Developing countries need sufficient financing from developed nations to implement climate solutions. Developed countries, meanwhile, keep finding new excuses to delay under the guise of involving more actors or needing more time to analyze proposed decisions.

It has happened in countless talks before. It happened again in Bonn. And it will likely happen again. It is as if the world is stuck in a never-ending loop of a modern-day pop tune: promising at the start, tiring after the first listen or two, and more annoying after a few more plays, until you take your earphones off and long for music from the 1980s.

As if on cue, SB62 was delayed by two days because Parties could not agree on the agenda. Still, it was not as bad as two years ago, when the agenda was not adopted until near the end of the conference. Small mercies.

What stood out in Bonn was not substance, but procedure. And not just the string of procedural outcomes for multiple workstreams that scream ‘to be continued’ at COP30.

To do the exact same process again and again while expecting a different result – there is a word for that.

Trust in the multilateral process is declining after decades of disappointment. One telling sign in Bonn was the shift in atmosphere during the second week, when many Party and non-Party delegates left to attend London Climate Week instead.

Everyone knows COPs and SBs need to change. The COP30 Presidency knows this, which is why they are introducing ‘circles’ of stakeholders to hopefully indicate inclusivity – rather than dictate the direction in which the Belém talks will go.

Parties and observers know this, which is why Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM), the workstream grappling directly with this problem, is gaining attention. Even the late Pope Francis recognized this in Laudate Deum – making the Holy See’s current passivity in negotiations all the more baffling.

There are still four months to go before COP30. Calls for a new melody on the road to Belém are only growing louder.
Will world leaders listen?

Honestly? Unlikely – not with conflicts, protectionism, and fossil fuel interests still dominating.
But for our sake, let us hope this answer is wrong.