Developed countries refused to accept Article 9.1 as a new agenda item, sparking a formal discussion that exposed differences over public climate finance likely to shape the path to COP30
On Monday, the seventh day of SB62, the Bonn climate talks hosted a formal consultation on Article 9.1 under the authority of the SB Chairs.
The consultation was a compromise after a two-day deadlock over whether to add Article 9.1 as a standalone agenda item – an idea opposed by developed countries, but strongly pushed by the G77 and LMDCs.
This consultation gave countries the chance to go on record about the delivery, or lack thereof, of public climate finance from developed to developing countries.
Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement states that developed countries shall provide financial resources to assist developing countries with respect to both mitigation and adaptation, in continuation of their obligations under the Convention.
With over 30 interventions, the session revealed a clear divide: developing countries called for accountability, while developed countries emphasised existing mechanisms.
What Developing Countries Said
The G77+China, LMDCs, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Least Developed Countries (LDCs), African Group of Negotiators (AGN), and others used the session to reiterate a simple point: the lack of implementation of Article 9.1 is undermining trust, ambition, and equity.
India, speaking multiple times, stated that without Article 9.1 being fulfilled, climate ambition cannot be scaled. It argued that “Article 9.1 is not just a moral obligation but a legal one, flowing from Article 4.3 of the Convention.” India also flagged that shifting the focus to private finance and Article 9.3, which talks about “mobilisation” of finance, is an “eyewash” that avoids responsibility.
Article 4.3 of the UNFCCC, requires developed countries to provide new and additional financial resources to cover the agreed full costs and full incremental costs for developing countries to implement climate actions.
Bolivia, on behalf of LMDCs, went further — calling 9.1 the “weakest link” in finance discussions. It criticised the fragmentation of finance discussions across agenda items and demanded a standalone item and a work programme to structure modalities of implementation. It emphasised the need to assess geographic allocation, channels of provision, and barriers to access.
AILAC linked 9.1 to development justice, stating that climate action in their region is largely funded through non-concessional loans, thereby penalising ambition. They urged a shift toward grants and reasserted that provision must be disaggregated from mobilisation (Article 9.3).
The Arab Group bluntly stated that the current structure deflects responsibility, dilutes obligations, and politicises basic provisions of equity. Referring to the way Article 9.1 was bypassed in the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) decision in Baku, they stated: “It is an open secret that this is contentious. But leaders don’t pass the buck.”
Nigeria and Chad warned that their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) remain unsupported and that without a clear framework on 9.1, any ambition will remain theoretical. AOSIS stressed that provision of finance is critical to long-term goals and that diluting it across agenda items risks masking underperformance.
What Developed Countries Said
In contrast, developed countries pushed back on the idea of creating a new agenda item. Switzerland on behalf of Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), the EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, and others said Article 9.1 is already being addressed through existing agenda items on NCQG, the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), Article 9.5, and biennial reports.
The EIG proposed a package of three new agenda items that would “streamline” discussions on Article 9 across COP, CMA, and SBI bodies. They argued that fragmentation makes it hard for smaller delegations to engage and that a consolidated agenda would be more efficient.
Australia and the EU questioned what gap a new agenda item would fill, claiming that Article 9.1 is already being implemented transparently through reporting mechanisms. They warned against duplicating work and overburdening an already packed agenda.
New Zealand and Iceland echoed these concerns, suggesting that the existing architecture is already fit for purpose and that parties should instead focus on improving how it is used.
The Procedural Tensions
The session was upset by time limits and mic cutoffs, with parties like India and Bolivia raising points of order. They reminded the Chairs that this was a substantive consultation and not a technical one.
The format limited parties to three to five minutes, leading to several interventions being cut off mid-way. Bolivia strongly objected to this, stating that the point of the consultation was to hear substantive, not abbreviated, views.
The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) Chairs noted the strong appetite to continue these discussions and committed to reflect the views in their report to the 63rd Subsidiary Body (SB63).
What Led to this Consultation
The consultation was the outcome of a dramatic two-day deadlock over the agenda that began on the first day of SB62. The reason? A sharp divide between developed and developing countries over whether to include a new standalone agenda item focused on the implementation of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement.
After a series of closed-door consultations, the Chairs proposed a compromise: the agenda item would not be added, but a formal consultation on Article 9.1 would be held under the authority of the SB Chairs, with a commitment to report back at SB63. This paved the way for the consultation on June 23.
What Comes Next
The divide is clear. Developing countries are demanding a dedicated space for accountability on Article 9.1. Developed countries are pushing back, not necessarily by denying the importance of public finance, but by emphasising that existing processes are sufficient and warning against overloading the agenda.
India and the LMDCs have clearly signalled they will raise the standalone item again at COP30. The path forward will depend on several factors: how the SB Chairs reflect the consultation in their official report to SB63, and whether Brazil (as COP30 Presidency) is open to including the item.
What happens next will determine whether the climate process lives up to its promise of fairness or continues to sideline the very countries it claims to support.
About The Author
You may also like
Stepping Towards $1.3 Trillion: Inside the Baku to Belém Roadmap Party Consultation at SB62
Will Bonn Talks Set the Stage for COP30?
Can parametric insurance protect India’s most vulnerable from climate risks?
Carbon Pricing Key to Drive Decarbonisation in Internationally Traded Sectors: Report
Major emitters are liable to pay for climate damages: German court’s seminal ruling
