Bonn Climate Talks 2025: Unilateral Trade Measures Ignite Debate on Justice, Equity, and Just Transitions

The 2025 Bonn Climate Talks, held from June 16 to 26 during the 62nd session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62), opened on a tense note.

The 2025 Bonn Climate Talks, held from June 16 to 26 during the 62nd session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62), opened on a tense note, with the adoption of the agenda delayed by disagreements among countries—particularly over the inclusion of Unilateral Trade Measures (UTMs). While the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), G77 and China pushed for UTMs to be discussed as a standalone agenda item, a compromise was reached: they would be addressed under the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme (UAE JTWP)—a platform established at COP28 in 2022 to guide equitable pathways to meet the Paris Agreement goals.

What Are Unilateral Trade Measures?

Unilateral Trade Measures (UTMs) refer to trade-related actions (like tariffs or import restrictions) taken by individual countries or regional blocs based on domestic criteria, often environmental or climate-related. A prominent example is the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes a carbon price on imports based on their embedded emissions. Other countries including the UK and Canada have announced or are considering similar measures. These policies are being introduced under the pretext of climate action, but many developing countries view them as protectionist tools that shift climate burdens unfairly.

Why Are UTMs a Flashpoint?

UTMs became a sticking point not just in Bonn but in earlier climate conferences. At COP28 in Dubai, developing nations highlighted the issue, leading to the Global Stocktake outcome reaffirming the principle of avoiding arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or disguised restrictions on international trade—a reference to concerns raised by LMDC, G77, and China. These concerns gained further traction at COP29, and in global forums like the 2024 BRICS declaration, which condemned the rising trend of unilateral environmental measures.

Ahead of the Bonn meeting, the LMDC group submitted a formal note to the UNFCCC Secretariat, arguing that UTMs increase the cost of climate action globally, undermine multilateralism, and contradict the principles of the UNFCCC, its Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. They contend that such measures are in violation of Rio Convention principles—particularly equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), a foundational concept of global climate governance that acknowledges the different capabilities and responsibilities of developed and developing countries.

CBAM’s Uneven Impacts on Developing Economies

A 2024 report by India’s Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) estimated CBAM’s likely impact on India-EU trade, concluding that such policies penalize exports from developing countries without offering support for decarbonisation. CSE emphasized that UTMs risk reinforcing global trade inequalities, acting as disguised instruments of climate protectionism, and shifting climate responsibility away from historical emitters to low-income nations.

According to the LMDC bloc, such actions should be remedied under international frameworks. Citing Article 3.5 of the UNFCCC, which prohibits climate-related trade barriers, and Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which mandates financial support from developed to developing nations, they argue that any unilateral climate measure must not exacerbate the burden on developing countries or impede their sustainable development goals.

The UAE Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP)

As the main forum for these discussions, the UAE Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP)—launched at COP28—has become central to the equity-versus-ambition divide. Its goal is to guide countries through fair, inclusive, and nationally determined transitions to low-carbon economies while ensuring socio-economic protection for vulnerable communities.

At SB62, the first week of JTWP negotiations saw sharp differences in priorities. While developed countries—such as the EU, UK, Australia, and Japan—focused on raising climate ambition and aligning with the 1.5°C goal, developing nations—including the African Group, LDCs, G77, and LMDCs—highlighted the importance of equity, financial support, and context-specific just transition pathways.

The G77 and China, representing 134 developing countries, insisted that UTMs be integrated into JTWP discussions as they directly impact economic justice and development sovereignty. Meanwhile, countries like India, Kenya, Russia, and the Arab Group reinforced this stance. Russia, notably, was the only developed country to back UTM discussions.

On the other hand, Australia dismissed UTMs as "trade disputes" that distract from JTWP’s core goals, and the EU warned against overshadowing previously agreed elements. India, however, argued that UTMs fall squarely within the programme’s scope, citing alignment with just transition principles.

Divergence in Priorities: Developed vs Developing World

The co-facilitators of the JTWP negotiations proposed seven structural elements for the upcoming draft text, including operationalisation, contextual framing, and enabling support. While African countries underscored the need for energy access, employment, and clean cooking, LDCs demanded debt restructuring to be included. Conversely, developed countries pushed for incorporating just transition language in all official submissions—like Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS).

The LMDC bloc responded by asserting that just transition pathways must be nationally defined, and urged inclusion of financial obligations under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement in the draft’s preamble. They reiterated that there cannot be a “one-size-fits-all” global model for just transitions—especially when many nations are still battling poverty and underdevelopment.

Looking Ahead: Can Consensus Be Achieved?

By the end of Week 1, negotiations had shifted to textual revisions of the draft decision. However, proposed amendments remained tightly aligned with entrenched national or group positions. As countries prepare for COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the deep fault lines around UTMs, finance, and equity could either make or break a meaningful outcome.

Given the fragile trust in multilateralism, especially after the failure to reach consensus on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) at COP29 in Baku, the JTWP has emerged as a test case. Can the global climate regime strike a balance between ambition and fairness, or will it remain mired in conflicting visions of climate justice?

Key Terms Defined

• Unilateral Trade Measures (UTMs): Trade actions taken independently by one country or region, often justified by climate or environmental standards, e.g., CBAM.

• Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM): An EU policy to apply a carbon price on imports based on their embedded emissions.

• Just Transition: A framework ensuring that the shift to low-carbon economies does not come at the expense of social equity, livelihoods, or vulnerable groups.

• Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC): A core principle of climate negotiations recognizing varied responsibilities and capacities between developed and developing nations.

• UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the main international treaty to combat climate change.

Click for Daily Current Affairs Summary

Click for Daily Quotes:

Stay updated with the latest news by joining our Telegram channel – The PRESS Pad , and follow us on Instagram and X.