UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell has voiced frustration at the slow pace of progress at the close of the Bonn Climate Change Conference (SB62), warning that parties must “go further, faster, and fairer” if the world is to keep the Paris Agreement goals alive.

Addressing delegates in the closing plenary, Stiell struck a tone that was equal parts urgent and dissatisfied. While he welcomed limited progress on issues such as the Just Transition Work Programme, Gender, National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and transparency mechanisms, he did not shy away from naming the areas where talks had floundered, most notably on climate finance, the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), and response measures.

“I’m not going to sugar coat it; we have a lot more to do before we meet again in Belém,” Stiell said, referring to the upcoming COP30 negotiations in Brazil. “There is so much more work to do to keep 1.5 alive, as science demands.”

His comments came after nearly two weeks of technical talks which failed to deliver meaningful breakthroughs on key agenda items that developing countries have long considered urgent. Throughout SB62, countries from the Global South expressed deep concern that adaptation goals and climate finance, critical lifelines for vulnerable nations, were again being sidelined by procedural wrangling and political inertia.

A flashpoint early in the meeting was the attempt to remove reference to Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which clearly obligates developed nations to provide climate finance, from the agenda. The move triggered a procedural standoff that stalled negotiations for over 30 hours. For developing countries, this was a red flag signalling a broader retreat from commitments.

Reacting to the stalemate at the end of the talks, Mohamed Adow, Director, Power Shift Africa, said the outcome was “a sobering reminder that the international community is still dragging its feet, even as lives are being lost to climate breakdown.”

“The slow pace on core issues like finance, adaptation, and just transition reveals a deepening trust gap between rich and vulnerable nations,” said Adow, adding that “the attempt to sideline Article 9.1 and reduce climate finance to rebranded aid should alarm us all”.

“This is not just procedural wrangling, it is a retreat from obligations. If the Global Goal on Adaptation is to mean anything, it must be underpinned by finance that is new, predictable, and grant-based. There was some welcome momentum on the UAE Just Transition Work Programme. Progress on creating an enabling international environment is vital, especially in tackling barriers like unilateral trade measures.

But, added, Adow, time is running out. “As the UN climate boss Simon Stiell rightly said, we need to go ‘further, faster, and fairer.’ The Brazilian Presidency has a major task ahead. COP30 in Belém must be the moment where commitments become delivery – and where justice moves from rhetoric to reality.”

Cristina Rumbaitis, Senior Advisor on Adaptation and Resilience at UN Foundation, agreed with these sentiments, saying: “It is deeply disappointing that Parties were unable to come to an agreement on the way forward on the GGA in Bonn. Failure to deliver clear next steps  on the GGA indicators and guidance to technical experts would potentially set back the process for a year or more.  We must find a way to make progress on the Global Goal on Adaptation, a priority for so many developing  countries and a critical, yet unfulfilled, pillar of the Paris Agreement.”

On the penultimate day of talks, negotiators had scrambled for hours to wrap up key items. While, for instance, progress had been made on gender and the Adaptation Fund, discussions on just transition remained unresolved. And on the Global Goal on Adaptation, Parties clashed over guidance on indicators, with the African and Arab Groups pushing for alignment with the Paris Agreement and deletion of duplicative cross-cutting language. Tensions also rose over means of implementation (MoI), with developing countries rejecting proposals that downplayed finance obligations. A streamlined text on indicator guidance was eventually agreed upon.

While adaptation communications saw agreement after compromise over a paragraph referencing the Adaptation Committee, discussions on reviewing the committee’s performance exposed governance disagreements between developed and developing countries. And on mitigation, parties clashed over the Mitigation Work Programme’s scope and structure. The LMDCs demanded removal of all bullet points, while others wanted science and NDC synthesis reports referenced. No consensus emerged on a proposed digital platform.

Stiell’s closing remarks, therefore, echoed that sense of dismay among Parties and delegates. He stressed the need for negotiators to engage between sessions, urging them to stop deferring “the hard decisions” until COP summits. “We need leaders and ministers to roll up their sleeves,” he said. “This is your agenda. Your process. Progress here will benefit your people.”

For many delegates from the Global South, the frustration goes deeper than the gridlock in Bonn. There is growing sentiment that the climate talks are increasingly detached from the lived realities of countries already facing the worst climate impacts. While the Global Goal on Adaptation was meant to offer clarity and a pathway to climate resilience, parties failed to agree on indicators, particularly those linked to finance.

India, on behalf of the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group, had at the beginning of the talks pushed back against what it called attempts to dilute equity under the guise of a “just transition.” It argued that, for many nations, the term rings hollow when divorced from state responsibility, financing guarantees, and protections for workers and communities facing economic upheaval.

Khaled Hashim, the coordinator for G77+China, noted that, on the UAE Just Transition Work Programme, “we are satisfied to see progress made during this session, particularly concerning the enabling international environment for just transitions. This highlights the importance of the urgent delivery of means of implementation, including climate finance, capacity-building, and technology development and transfer, to facilitate just transition pathways, while also addressing international barriers to a global just transition, such as unilateral measures.”

He added: “We acknowledge the importance of the UAE JTWP dialogues, and the new institutional arrangements proposed by G77+China, aimed at supporting and enhancing the implementation of Just Transition pathways. We encourage all parties to consider these arrangements at SB63 to enhance international cooperation, therefore enabling equitable and inclusive global Just Transition, that leaves no one behind.”

The finance debate hovered over the entire process like a gathering storm since the first day two weeks ago. Despite long-standing pledges, the delivery of predictable, grant-based finance has been sluggish. No firm progress was made in Bonn on new quantified targets, nor were there signals that the developed world is prepared to move beyond symbolic contributions and private-sector-heavy models.

Stiell acknowledged the trust parties placed in the UNFCCC by agreeing to the institution’s budget, calling it “a modest but vital investment.” But that goodwill, he warned, must now be matched by action. “This process is humanity’s only means of preventing climate-driven global economic meltdown, with terrible human costs. Just as we have no Planet B, there is no Process B.”

With COP30 just five months away, expectations are mounting for a course correction. The new NDC Synthesis Report, expected in September, will assess the strength of countries’ updated national climate plans, but also expose the gap between pledges and planetary needs. A separate report on Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) is set to outline barriers to implementation, many of which revolve around finance, capacity, and political will.

Stiell encouraged parties to form “frontrunner groups” to break deadlocks and demonstrate ambition. But observers note that voluntary coalitions, however well-intentioned, cannot replace binding commitments, especially when core issues like adaptation and finance remain mired in stalemate.

In closing, Stiell paid tribute to delegates, co-facilitators, and long-serving staff members preparing to retire. But his final remarks reinforced what many in the room already sensed: time is slipping, and the current pace won’t cut it.

“We must find a way to get to the hard decisions sooner,” he urged.

For the Global South, battered by floods, droughts, and spiralling debt, the message was clear, if not reassuring: Belém must deliver more than platitudes. It must deliver justice.