The world's attention is focused on Bonn, Germany, where a critical environmental summit is underway. The 64th session of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCC is a pivotal moment, especially given the failure of COP30 in Belém to deliver a fossil fuel phase-out plan. This summit aims to translate political commitments into tangible actions on adaptation, energy transition, and other key climate issues.
However, a concerning trend has emerged. The climate talks seem to be becoming increasingly exclusive, with a shrinking civic space and growing barriers for those from developing nations, who are disproportionately affected by climate change. This raises questions about the accessibility and inclusivity of these negotiations.
The Importance of Civic Space
Mohamed Adow, founder of Power Shift Africa, highlights that climate negotiations impact billions, yet most are excluded from the room. Civil society press briefings are crucial for providing an independent account of these negotiations, especially for journalists from developing countries who face cost, visa, and budget constraints.
The Climate Action Network (CAN), a global civil society organization, has traditionally held daily press briefings at UN climate talks. These briefings are a vital channel for communicating the negotiations' progress to the public. However, this year, CAN was allocated a mere five press conference slots for the entire conference in Bonn, a move described as a "deliberate narrowing of civic space" by Adow.
Dr Ketakandriana "Ke" Rafitoson, Executive Director of Resource Justice Network, expresses deep concern over the reduced civil society press access at SB64. She argues that restricting this space weakens accountability precisely when trust in multilateral climate action should be rebuilt. If the UN climate process is committed to a just transition, it must protect the civic space for impacted communities to be heard.
The Presence of Lobbyists vs. Civic Engagement
Ironically, while civil society access is shrinking, the number of pro-oil lobbyists attending these events is growing. A 2025 analysis by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition found that one in every 25 attendees at COP30 was a fossil fuel lobbyist, a 12% increase from the 2024 talks in Baku. This marks the highest concentration of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP since 2021.
The UNFCCC has not responded to inquiries about the number of lobbyists attending the Bonn talks. Adow warns that reduced access for civil society impacts not just NGOs but also journalists, citizens, and communities worldwide, who lose a critical window into the negotiations. The principle at stake is whether independent civil society voices have a regular platform within the UN climate process.
The Visa Barrier: A Persistent Issue
Many governments argue that negotiations require a controlled space, but Baboucarr Nyang of CAN Africa emphasizes the difference between a quiet and a closed room. Negotiations can be focused and fair, but consistent visa denials, delays, and pricing out of delegates from Africa, Pacific islands, and frontline communities while wealthy country delegations face no barriers is not process management; it's exclusion.
Visa barriers to climate meetings are not new. The German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) has raised concerns about the exclusion of delegates from the least developed countries from UN climate negotiations in Europe due to paperwork delays since 2008. Last year's climate event in Bonn saw 223 delegates from Africa and Asia face visa difficulties, with 25 denied visas, 167 unprocessed applications, and 37 experiencing delays. Burundi, Cameroon, Egypt, Morocco, and Rwanda were left without representation.
Randa Khaled, from the Egyptian environmental organization Greenish, is one of many climate activists likely to miss the negotiations due to visa issues. She obtained UNFCCC accreditation, applied for a visa, and made travel preparations, but her participation remains uncertain. Khaled emphasizes the frustration of climate negotiations emphasizing inclusion, equity, and participation while representatives from countries like Egypt are physically excluded from decision-making spaces.
The financial impact is significant, with limited resources for grassroots organizations and youth-led initiatives. Every delayed visa and uncertainty carries a real financial cost that wealthier organizations from developed countries can often absorb. Khaled argues that this ongoing issue contradicts the heart of global climate governance, demanding that mobility and access be treated as part of climate justice.
An employee from PowerShift Africa, living in Ghana, has had her German visa rejected. Nyang highlights the reality of African delegates being turned away at embassies or not receiving responses, questioning how the outcomes can be called fair when those living with floods, droughts, and food insecurity daily are excluded from the room.
Trust, Nyang argues, is built when a Ugandan farmer, a Kenyan fisherwoman, or a Sahelian pastoralist can see someone like them at the table. The absence of these voices undermines the very foundation of a just and equitable climate transition.
Conclusion
The Bonn climate talks highlight a critical juncture where the principles of inclusion, equity, and participation are being tested. As the world navigates the complex path towards a sustainable future, ensuring that all voices are heard and represented fairly is not just a matter of justice but a necessity for effective and accountable climate governance.
