Education
‘Act now, not later’ – African groups warn SB64 is failing climate‑vulnerable communities – EnviroNews
– Advertisement –
As the 64th session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies (SB64) enters its final stretch in Bonn, African Civil Society organisations under the Pan‑African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), joined by Global South allies, have issued a stark warning: the negotiations are drifting toward an “unimpactful” close, leaving vulnerable communities exposed to escalating climate threats.
At a press conference on Tuesday, June 16, 2026, the coalition expressed deep frustration over what they described as a “slow, uninspired and dangerously complacent” first week of negotiations. With barely two and a half days left, they say the talks have yielded no substantive progress – particularly on climate finance, adaptation, and loss and damage – issues that are existential for African nations.
Negotiations Reduced to “Workshops and Consultations”
Civil society leaders lamented that SB64 has been dominated by procedural discussions and informal consultations rather than concrete decisions. Critical agenda items, especially those tied to unlocking climate finance, have been “systematically relegated to the periphery,” they said.
This stagnation, they warned, comes at a time when African communities are bracing for what could be one of the most devastating El Niño events in recent history. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), sea‑surface temperature anomalies in the central and eastern Pacific are expected to exceed 2°C – levels associated with severe global climate disruptions.
For frontline communities – women, youth, Indigenous peoples, and smallholder farmers – the implications are dire. “We are staring at debilitating floods, destroyed livelihoods, collapsed infrastructure, and loss of lives,” the statement read. “In other regions, severe droughts will render communities destitute.”
Key Concerns Raised by African Civil Society
1. Procedural Injustice and Visa Denials
The coalition condemned what it called a “troubling erosion of procedural justice,” citing numerous cases of negotiators and observers from developing countries being denied visas to attend SB64.
They argued that the UNFCCC Secretariat must ensure that host country protocols do not impede participation. “The right to representation is immutable,” they stressed. “Excluding frontline voices undermines the legitimacy of the entire process.”
2. Omission of National Adaptation Plans and Loss & Damage
Civil society groups expressed alarm over the absence of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Loss & Damage from the SB64 agenda. Adaptation, they emphasized, remains Africa’s top priority, and NAPs are the primary vehicles through which countries articulate and implement adaptation strategies.
Africa’s annual adaptation needs are estimated at $70 billion, yet developed countries have “vacated their responsibilities,” shifting the burden toward domestic and private sector financing. This, they argued, violates Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which places the responsibility for climate finance squarely on developed nations.
“The omission of NAPs from the agenda appears to be a systematic maneuver to postpone or block the inevitable question of financing,” the statement warned.
3. Blurring the Belem-Addis Vision on Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) Indicators
The coalition criticized the stalled negotiations on GGA indicators, which were expected to be fast‑tracked under the Belem-Addis Vision agreed at COP30. Instead, discussions have devolved into a tug‑of‑war over the composition of the taskforce and the metadata required to operationalise the indicators.
Developing countries insist on a party‑driven process, while developed nations prefer a technical expert‑led approach. PACJA argued that adaptation indicators cannot be reduced to a purely technical exercise.
“Adaptation outcomes must be measured through improvements in food security, water availability, public health, ecosystem integrity, and human wellbeing,” they said, emphasising the need for indicators grounded in local realities and traditional knowledge.
They also warned that the commitment to triple adaptation finance by 2035 – one of the flagship outcomes of COP30 – is at risk. Developed countries have opposed strong language on adaptation finance and resisted efforts to include means of implementation in the Baku roadmap.
“What developing countries need is not more workshops,” the coalition said, “but delivery of climate finance at scale.”
4. Just Transition Mechanism Must Not Become Another Talk Shop
On the Just Transition Mechanism (JTM), African Civil Society reiterated that just transition cannot remain an unfunded aspiration. They called for a decision that gives the JTM real authority, clear scope, and full means of implementation.
The mechanism, they argued, must support technology transfer, capacity‑building, and equitable transitions tailored to Africa’s unique socio‑economic contexts. “It must deliver genuine transformation for last‑mile communities,” they said.
A Call to Break the Climate Finance Deadlock
In their closing appeal, the coalition urged Parties to “break the jinx” that has long plagued climate finance negotiations. They called for a dedicated space to address the provision, accessibility, quality, predictability, and accountability of climate finance.
They cautioned against attempts to use Article 2(1c) of the Paris Agreement – which promotes aligning financial flows with low‑carbon development – as a substitute for developed countries’ obligations under Article 9.1.
“The two articles must be read together,” they insisted.
With the clock ticking toward the end of SB64, African Civil Society warned that the success of the session hinges on Parties abandoning diversionary tactics and embracing the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR‑RC).
“Parties hold the key to a meaningful outcome,” they said. “But only if they swing from rhetoric to action.”