As a researcher who has a deep involvement in Indigenous communities in Brazil, I frequently receive questions from community members about how climate decisions are made and who has the authority to speak for whom. These questions, and the urgent need for more transparent and equitable processes, prompted my participation at UNFCCC SB621 in Bonn as an observer. My aim was to understand how decisions are formed within the Subsidiary Bodies process, which directly influences COP-level negotiations. I sought to experience firsthand how pluralism and representation are, or are not, reflected in action within the UNFCCC framework. The UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Bodies comprise the SBI, which addresses implementation issues, and the SBSTA, which provides scientific and technical advice to the climate negotiations (See Chakrabarty and Tater 2025).
Participation, Language Barriers and ‘Just Transition’
While attending, I was struck by the energy and commitment of delegates and observers alike. The sense of urgency was clear. People care deeply about climate change and climate justice. But as the sessions progressed, it became clear that participation is not always matched by influence. Minority and Indigenous representatives were present in the rooms, often making strong, thoughtful interventions. However, I also witnessed how some of these voices were sidelined or subtly undermined, whether through a lack of translation, procedural shortcuts, or rhetorical strategies designed to rush consensus.
In one session, for example, I observed a Brazilian Indigenous participant struggle to follow the discussion due to a missing interpretation. At other times, I heard phrases like “we don’t have time for more detail” or “why are we returning to this point?”, comments that risk silencing legitimate concerns. Yet, those same marginalised voices continued to assert their presence, often with admirable persistence and clarity. Their fight to be heard revealed not only their commitment but also the uneven terrain on which global climate discussions still take place.
Two key areas where this disparity was particularly evident were the discussions around Just Transition and the Loss and Damage Fund. These themes, by definition, should focus on the experiences of those most affected by climate change, yet much of the debate was framed by larger, more powerful parties. In the Just Transition dialogues, I noticed that while many delegations expressed interest in inclusive, equitable pathways, there was little clarity or agreement on how this would be financed or implemented. Indigenous and minority representatives made clear that a transition cannot be called “just” if it does not include them, not only as recipients of aid but as co-architects of solutions. Similarly, in the Loss and Damage debate, there was an acknowledgement of need, but limited progress on ensuring accessible and transparent funding channels for the most vulnerable.
One particularly powerful moment came during a demonstration by some observers attending the conference, who raised urgent questions about the definition of “just transition.” Their message was clear: any transition that overlooks the social impacts of climate change, on workers, on displaced communities, on marginalised populations, is not truly a ‘Just’ Transition. They called attention to the specific realities of countries most affected by climate disruption, such as Caribbean Island nations, where rising seas and intensified storms are already threatening lives and livelihoods. These voices reminded the rest of us that climate justice is not just about carbon, it’s about inequality, memory, and survival. The protest wasn’t disruptive; it was a necessary intervention into a space where procedural language can easily erase lived realities. It underscored the need for climate governance that listens not only to policy, but to people, and especially to those who have historically been excluded from shaping the future.
Power and Pluralism
Having longstanding experience working with Indigenous communities in Brazil, I approached UNFCCC SB62 with both curiosity and a sense of responsibility. It was evident that Indigenous peoples and other minority communities took part in various sessions, but I continually questioned whether their involvement was meaningful or merely symbolic. This concern intensified as I observed instances of exclusion, not only in who was speaking but also in whose contributions shaped the course of discussions. For example, in several meetings, I noted the absence of interpretation services for non-English-speaking Indigenous delegates, especially from Brazil. Even when they were included in the space, complete participation was hindered without language support. These experiences led me to formulate a set of five key questions, which I used to guide me and ask a representative directly to give me a better understanding of the mechanisms of inclusion in practice.
I need to assess the level of meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples at UNFCCC SB62, beyond formal inclusion in meetings. One Indigenous participant, as an Observer, explained to me that although they have spaces to speak, the relationship is still very imbalanced, especially related to language power. Her account was that: “I believe the participation was generally good. We have a very engaged constituency that is present in the discussions and makes collectively constructed interventions. Our positions are also discussed in daily meetings. It is very clear that we still need to make progress in many areas, but it must be taken into account that, for Indigenous peoples who do not speak English as a national language, progress in the discussions occurs more slowly. Even so, the interventions were necessary to distinguish Indigenous peoples from local communities, to ensure their mention in official texts, and to continue the dialogue toward eventually gaining recognition as experts and working actively on the final texts” (Indigenous Brazilian participant as Observer, Author translation).
Other participants, as observers, also noticed and stated similar observations: “Indigenous peoples were present… but were not given the platform or resources to meaningfully contribute” (Canadian Activist and Observer).
I specific asked some Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants about the linguistics provision to include those participants who are not English speakers, and their observations were similar to mine. There is a big problem of inclusion, as the interpretation service is privately provided as I understood: “Most Brazilian participants who did not speak English did not have access to translation services. This is because interpretation services are privately funded by specific groups or projects. In this case, only participants involved in projects that included interpreter support had access to the service. At certain times, the Latin American Youth Scholarship project managed to provide interpretation into Portuguese and Spanish in the UN interpretation booth, but they could only cover sessions where scholars from the project were pre-registered, as well as informal conversation spaces where they were present and offered listening devices. Beyond that, anyone who did not speak English was limited to spaces where translation was available” (Indigenous Brazilian participant as Observer).
Considering the number of essential meetings happening during the event, this exclusion seems to me very significant and can impact the nature of inclusion that is required in the discussions.
Given the scenario encountered, it is crucial to consider how Indigenous voices influence specific decisions or negotiation outcomes, particularly in the context of the LDC discussions or the Loss and Damage Fund. In this regard, one participant said: “The interventions were essential to ensure that Indigenous peoples were mentioned in the guidance texts on the GGA [Global Goal on Adaptation under the UNFCCC]” (Indigenous Brazilian participant, Author translation). However, in the observation of other participants: “Even when they contributed, their perspectives were heard but ultimately not taken into consideration” (Canadian observer).
The current structure of the UNFCCC SB62, as I witness it, appears to marginalise minority groups’ voices in the main discussions among major parties, especially those in which English serves as the main mode of communication. This concern aligns with that of Claire Charlo, an Indigenous Feminisms educator, who stresses during the event on her take up statement the importance of increasing engagement with minority communities globally, with a particular focus on equity for women and girls. Looking toward COP30, it is hoped that minority groups gain more power and that the language barrier does not hinder advancing the agenda. The Indigenous people themselves should be able to articulate their desires, as a participant pointed out: “Only the parties have the right to negotiate the terms… We also do not have Indigenous experts to carry out reviews” (Indigenous Brazilian participant as overflow). As a Canadian observer states, “Many decisions were made on behalf of minority communities… Priority was still given to the comments of developed parties.”
True climate justice requires that Indigenous peoples, the guardians of the world’s biodiversity, be able to fully participate in their own languages and with resources that provide complete translations, as interpretation and translation services are not optional; they are essential for equitable and effective climate governance. Additionally, it is necessary to establish an initial foundation that recognises the legal framework underpinning the language used in these meetings. All members involved need to have specific prior knowledge of the terminology; otherwise, it naturally acts as a barrier to those unfamiliar with such terms and concepts.
Conclusion
Inclusion and pluralism are not achieved if participation occurs without influence, and inclusion without accessibility means that pluralism remains only a desire. To attain effective climate action, these meetings, including the COPs, especially COP30, must ensure that they hear Indigenous voices and that are not only being heard but also genuinely listened to at every stage of negotiations, integrating them into decision-making processes. Unless language barriers, power dynamics, and the promotion of genuine participation through inclusive mechanisms are addressed, climate negotiations will continue to fall short of the justice which everyone envisions.
Acknowledgements:
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the activists and colleagues who generously shared their time, insights, and experiences with me. Your thoughtful answers to my questions about the events were invaluable in shaping a thorough, more accurate understanding. This article is as much a reflection of your contributions as it is of my own.
Vera da Silva Sinha is Associate Professor and Principal Investigator, Talent Rep. Program – Conhecimento Brasil, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) in cooperation with the Postgraduate Program in Anthropology (PPGA), Federal University of Paraíba (UFPB). Postdoctoral researcher at the University of Oxford. Email: vera.sinha@gmail.com
References:
Chakrabarty, A., & Tater, A. B. (2025, May 7). Is the UNFCCC climate governance truly pluralist? Examining the Loss and Damage Fund. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society. https://www.envirosociety.org/2025/05/is-the-unfccc-climate-governance-truly-pluralist-examining-the-loss-and-damage-fund/
Claire Charlo, (video Read at 2:06) https://unfccc.int/event/joint-closing-plenary-of-sbsta-62-and-sbi-62-to-take-up-statements.
1 SB 62 refers to the 62nd sessions of the UNFCCC’s two Subsidiary Bodies—the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)—which together held the mid year “June Climate Meetings” in Bonn, Germany, from 16 to 26 June 2025
