The sixty-second sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), colloquially referred to as SB62, emphasized a shared understanding among parties and observers of the need for intersectional approaches to climate mitigation. Delegates recognized that a one-size-fits-all strategy is ineffective, and instead, responses and goals must be tailored to the diverse geographical, socio-political, environmental, and cultural contexts of affected communities.
One of the key themes at SB62 (held in Bonn, Germany in June 2025) were the necessity for financial strategies that go beyond funding commitments to include accountability frameworks for ensuring that resources are used as intended. Discussions stressed the importance of transparency, responsible finance deployment, and mitigating strategies to avoid duplication of existing and past projects in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) region.
Notably, during the Sharm el-Sheikh Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme, developed Parties proposed to establish a virtual platform for tracking climate finance flows for better financial deployment and project governance. The idea was quickly rejected by many LDC and SIDS delegates, who argued that it duplicated previous failed initiatives and risked wasting resources without producing concrete results. Party delegates from LDCs and SIDS nations clearly highlighted their needs throughout the meetings, yet the
developed parties failed to take their requests into consideration. Instead, Parties from more developed nations began proposing a country platform that allowed investors to find projects on a secure virtual platform while also allowing projects to seek financiers globally. However, the issue and clear ask by most LDCs and SIDS was prioritizing projects based on immediate climate issues. Most LDCs and SIDS delegates refused to support the country platform as it had no quantifiable outcome promising implementation and on-the-ground results.
This rejection indicated the need for equity-focused impact assessments during project planning. Such assessments could help ensure that funding allocations reflect real community needs and avoid redundant or ineffective interventions. Despite proposals emphasizing finance tracking, measuring, and reporting, these measures often fall short of enabling effective capacity building at the local actionable level. Moreover, the lack of established definition of “Climate Fund” creates transparency and statistical issues in investment reports. The gap in understanding and acknowledging these immediate needs created a great deal of frustration for LDCs and SIDS. Tensions were evident as the discrepancy in understandings set the tone of the negotiations. Parties from developing countries called for efforts to be effectively established instead of fragmented projects that are not resourced, financed, and thought-out.
Simply investing money will not solve the issue. Projects must address the country’s climate needs and acknowledge specific, context-based climate change driven resource gaps such as limited access to water, electricity, education, infrastructure, health care etc. As noted in The Impact of Climate Change on the Development Prospects of the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States (Gul et. al., 2025), “LDCs have a per capita Gross Domestic Product of less than $900 and very low levels of capital, human and technological development.” The recurring debate and inability to increase long term investment value of each project by taking every contributing factor into account has been reflected time and time again with financial promises that come without governance and accountability and cannot meet the urgency of climate adaptation needed to withstand the climate disasters that are now common occurrences for most LDCs and SIDS.
What investees fail to consider is the inability of their approach to address effective climate solutions. While LDCs’ representatives were present in negotiations, their input was not considered, and the upper hand in funding negotiations shifted towards developed country parties. Many highlighted how developed nations continue to fall short of their financial commitments that were made during the Conference of Parties (COP) 29, particularly those tied to Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which states, “Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.” This emphasizes the developed Parties’ responsibility towards LDCs and SIDs, and the reluctance in investing and providing resources that has been widening the sustainable development gap between nations which will delay climate mitigation and justice. The donor-centric investment efforts means that countries are unlikely to meet their mitigation goals without climate assessments that identify the key factors that potentially hinder climate efforts for the investee country. Capacity constraints are a major hinderance due to the unavailability of skilled labor and inadequate infrastructure which impacts project implementation and the risk of running short on funding. Gul et al. (2025) highlights how making country platforms focused on national and international investment can be made durable by shifting the focusing from the investor to adaptation needs that are locally driven and an effort to build capacity as the platform grows.
A significant breakdown occurred in negotiations toward the end of SB62 where LDCs and SIDS firmly reinstated their needs when they were being pushed into the margins. Delegates repeatedly raised their nameplates, and frustration was evident in their voices and gestures, as developed Parties dominated the negotiations and minimized their immediate needs. The atmosphere in the room grew tense, with some delegates visibly upset at the lack of meaningful progress. Despite these efforts, parties could not agree on an inclusive plan for COP 30 in Belem. The Arab Group emphasized that delaying adaptation finance also delays climate solutions and sustainable development. Pushing vital decisions on implementation and funding forward to 2026 impacts the climate future of LDCs and SIDS who are at increasing climate risk every year. According to the Arab Group, Article 9.1 has repeatedly faced similar breakdowns in previous negotiations, where compliance was either ignored or the needs of investee countries were sidelined. Without governance and strategic planning for financial investments, projects inevitably face multiple obstacles and often result in partial or no outcomes. While everyone was eager to reach consensus and end the session on a positive note, it was unreasonable to move forward without ensuring that LDCs and SIDS were supported, which delayed agreements once again.
The inability to reach consensus and funding needs despite formal agreements remains a recurring and deeply concerning issue. For tangible progress and results, climate finance must be informed by the lived realities of those most affected and not by institutions far removed from the climate impacts on ground. This requires establishing a clear guideline of what “climate finance” truly means, then establishing transparent reporting framework before and after financial deployment that reflects the local needs and obstacles of project members on the ground. As the negotiations move toward COP30, the credibility of the Paris Agreement will depend on whether developed nations translate commitments into actionable and long-term value driven outcomes. SB62 highlighted the increasing value of equity, and how without a thorough anthropological analysis of financial governance, climate finance will remain an empty and unattainable promise at a time when sustainable development is critical to this planet’s future.
Photograph captured by Marium Sheikh during the Sharm el-Sheikh Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme negotiations/
References
Gul, M., Holland, E., Hassan, A., & Upson, L. (2025). The realities of country platforms for LDCs and SIDS: Ten key lessons. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2025-04/22630g.pdf
International Institute for Environment and Development. (2025). The Realities Of Country Platforms for LDCs and SIDS: Ten Key Lessons. IIED. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2025-04/22630g.pdf
United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States. (2009). The impact of climate change on LDCs and SIDS. United Nations. https://www.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www.un.org.ohrlls/files/the_impact_of_cc_on_ldcs_and_sids_for_web.pdf
Marium Sheikh is a student at the University of Calgary with a background in business, climate equity, anthropology, and research. She studies how global production systems, markets, and resource extraction drive climate change and deepen social inequalities and make them more vulnerable to climate disasters. Her work explores food insecurity, sustainable consumption, climate finance, and just energy transition.