Key climate finance decisions have again been deferred, leaving African countries without the tools to deliver on ambitious goals.

Geopolitical fractures were on full display at the mid-year United Nations (UN) climate talks in Bonn. Negotiations ended with many agenda items deferred to November’s UN COP31 conference in Antalya, Türkiye, and little consensus on how to support climate action goals.

At the opening of the June meetings, UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell urged countries not to renegotiate existing agreements but to accelerate their implementation. However, the overarching message in Bonn was that countries – especially in the developing world – were struggling to implement their commitments.

Several discussions ended in gridlock over implementation, with a lack of funding being the main problem. Without secured finance, adaptation and a just energy transition remain merely aspirational for developing countries.

Unless COP31 – dubbed the ‘implementation COP’ – unlocks the means to take action, it will leave African countries with mandates but no tools to deliver. Three essential tools are needed: accessible, predictable financial flows; access to climate-resilient and low-emission technologies; and technical expertise to support institutions.

In Bonn, finance was the key source of tension among country representatives on almost every agenda item. The Climate Finance Work Programme was established at COP30 to improve parties' understanding of their climate finance commitments and their ability to mobilise, access and deliver funds. But countries are still divided on this issue.

African countries are expected to meet ambitious national climate commitments while battling limited fiscal space, complex accreditation processes and high borrowing costs that restrict access to climate finance. If COP31 is to advance implementation, discussions must address how global financial flows can better support developing countries. For Africa, this means access to affordable capital and investment to implement adaptation and mitigation priorities at scale.

The implications are especially significant for adaptation. At COP30, countries agreed to triple adaptation finance; however, multiple structural and operational gaps limit the delivery of resources for African countries.

Most of the tensions in Bonn concerned the commitment to adaptation finance made at COP30. The agreed target did not clearly fix the baseline year or the absolute amount required. It also lacked clarity on who must deliver, how loans, guarantees and private finance will be counted and whether they will be risk-adjusted rather than taken at face value.

Countries also disagreed on how to achieve the Global Goal on Adaptation – the collective, qualitative goal to enhance capacity, reduce vulnerability and build resilience to climate change. Specifically, there was dissension over how to realise the commitment to triple adaptation finance and ensure adequate financing, capacity building and technology transfer.

Developed countries were more focused on technical work and frameworks for measuring progress. In contrast, many developing countries argued that adaptation targets were meaningless without the finance and support to implement them.

By comparison, discussions on the just transition were the most promising in Bonn. The Just Transition Work Programme focused on reviewing the programme to ensure it addressed the means of implementation, such as technical support for countries, technology and finance. This provided some hope that climate diplomacy could be starting to shift away from ambition towards implementation.

To ensure that COP31 is more than an ‘implementation COP’ in name, African countries should push for three decisions.

First, a quantified, time-bound target to triple adaptation finance (with a strong floor of public, grant-based resources). Second, arrangements for finance flows that support national development strategies rather than imposing conditionality. And third, a Just Transition Mechanism that considers systemic inequities and structural macro-economic barriers.

For too long, success in the UN climate process has been measured by agreements on new frameworks, targets and work programmes. Instead, COP should be judged by whether it helps countries to achieve climate action. Without matching conditions that enable implementation, consensus on frameworks and targets means little.

African countries must ensure that implementation becomes the organising principle of COP31. That means treating the various negotiating tracks as mutually reinforcing components of a single implementation agenda.

As long as developed and developing countries are divided over the scale, accessibility and predictability of climate finance, gaps in climate action will remain. The developing vs. developed country divide has historically stalled climate finance negotiations. However, the rise of new economic powers, debates over finance and differing interpretations of equity have added complexity to discussions.

COP31’s challenge will be to overcome the geopolitical divisions that shape climate negotiations. A South African negotiator observed: ‘In the absence of the [United States], who left a massive leadership vacuum, the [European Union] acted as the primary defender of developed-country interests, forming coalitions with Japan, Canada and the [United Kingdom].

‘This was evident in its opposition to expanding finance discussions under the adaptation agenda, contributing to a deadlock that resulted in Rule 16,’ which is invoked when no decision is adopted, and the matter is carried forward.

COP31 leadership will also influence what can be realistically achieved. The joint Australia-Türkiye presidency is both an opportunity and a challenge. On the one hand, it could broaden political ownership of negotiations and ensure constructive discussion across the divides. On the other, differing emphases on COP31 priorities could dilute a consistent narrative on implementation.

Disagreements will likely persist over the scale and sources of climate finance, the responsibilities of developed countries and the balance between public and private investment. A successful COP31 will ultimately depend on whether countries can find enough common ground to make implementation possible.

Written by Kgaugelo Mkumbeni, Research Officer, Climate Risk and Human Security, ISS Pretoria