From June 16 to 27, the 62nd session of the Subsidiary Bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (SB62) is taking place in Bonn, Germany.
As a prelude to COP30 in Belém do Pará, Brazil, this technical space has become a key arena of contention between corporate interests promoting false solutions and the people defending real alternatives to the climate crisis. It plays a strategic role in shaping future political decisions. A delegation from La Via Campesina is in Bonn, closely following the negotiations, the tensions, and the increasingly narrow space given to real solutions to the climate crisis.
During these negotiations, social movements are raising alarms about the advance of narratives that, under the language of “nature-based solutions” and “energy transitions”, open even more doors to land grabbing, the expansion of carbon markets, and the deepening of the extractivist model.
Discussions around new carbon markets under Article 6, for example, continue to prioritize offsetting over real emission reductions. In practice, this translates into more community displacements by large corporations that, even while increasing their emissions, are able to “reduce” them by purchasing carbon credits in countries of the Global South—thus enacting what has been called green colonialism.
One of the central axes of the negotiations in Bonn revolves around the so-called Baku-to-Belém roadmap, which sets the path from COP29 in Azerbaijan to the next summit in Brazil. The roadmap discusses just transitions, finance, adaptation, and the revision of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), but often lacks clarity regarding the actual commitments of states, mechanisms for accountability, and meaningful participation of the people. For instance, NDCs continue to be treated as market tools, open to offsetting projects that fail to reduce emissions but do generate profit for intermediary companies.
The issue of climate finance is another key axis of this roadmap, which sets the objective of mobilizing at least $1.3 trillion annually for countries of the Global South by 2035, combining public and private funds.
While this figure has been presented as an ambitious step forward, the social movements present in Bonn have deeply questioned both its origin—where public money guarantees private profit while vulnerable communities are left unprotected—and its structure, where what is presented as financial support could in fact reinforce mechanisms of dependency or even new forms of dispossession.
For this reason, beyond the numbers and promises, several social movements present in Bonn challenge the very concept of ‘climate finance’. They argue that before talking about finance, the framework of the debate must shift:
“let’s not talk about climate finance without first addressing the historical debt of the Global North to the Global South.”
Who created the crisis, and who suffers its impacts?
Many of the tools being promoted—such as green loans, climate insurance schemes, or public-private partnerships—impose new forms of indebtedness on Global South countries, often under opaque conditions. In some cases, these mechanisms give financing entities rights over land, resources, or strategic infrastructure. Given this reality, the question is not how much will be financed, but rather with what instruments and under what power relations.
Peasant movements like La Via Campesina have upheld a clear position in these spaces: “Grants, not loans”—a principle that affirms that climate finance should not be an additional burden but rather unconditional reparation for the historic injustice and ecological debt of the Global North to the peoples of the South.
The lack of this political lens pushes real, territorial solutions to the background.
Peasant agroecology, for example, has been almost absent in the official discussions, despite its proven role in climate resilience, planetary cooling, and food sovereignty. Instead, technological packages are being promoted—such as “climate-smart agriculture,” the intensive use of industrial bio-inputs, and certification systems that impose high costs on peasant communities without addressing the root causes of the crisis.
The growing influence of corporate actors in climate negotiations is translating into a multilateral architecture that is increasingly fragmented and less binding. There is talk of “energy transition” without seriously addressing energy consumption reduction in the North. There is mention of “community inclusion” while limiting the effective participation of social movements and failing to address or act against the criminalization of land defenders in many countries.
“Nature-based solutions” are being proposed without questioning the land grabbing they can provoke.
While there is widespread recognition of the need to mobilize more resources to support adaptation and mitigation in Global South countries, in reality, many of the events organized within SB62 resemble business fairs more than spaces for shaping effective climate policies. Energy and seed companies, development banks, investment funds, and consulting firms present projects, technologies, and business models as if it were an expo.
From our participation in Bonn, it is clear that the language of climate justice has been appropriated by many actors, but stripped of its political content. In response, several organizations present—including La Via Campesina—are working to expose contradictions, generate collective analysis, and build a people’s action agenda toward COP30 that restores the protagonism of those who live in and defend the territories, and who face the impacts of climate change on the frontlines.
The goal is twofold: to resist the advance of false solutions and to continue building real alternatives from the ground up.
This work of monitoring and denouncing is part of a broader process of coordination among social movements and allies of the Global Climate Justice Movement, with a view to COP30 in Belém. On this path, the active participation of peasant, Indigenous, Afro-descendant, artisanal fishing, women, and youth communities will be essential to contest the direction of climate negotiations. The aim is to demand that states prioritize people’s rights over corporate profits, reaffirming that another model of life—just and in harmony with nature—is not only possible, but urgent.
