Reporting from SB62: The Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3 Trillion

By Bryan Bixcul, SIRGE Coalition Global Coordinator

As climate finance continues to be the barrier between ambition and implementation, the Baku to Belém Roadmap has emerged as a key political initiative intended to operationalize the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) and mobilize at least USD 1.3 trillion annually by 2035 to support climate action in developing countries. Introduced at COP29 in Baku and expected to be finalized ahead of COP30 in Belém, the Roadmap is not a negotiated outcome, but a political undertaking jointly led by the COP29 and COP30 Presidencies. It aims to provide a credible, actionable trajectory for scaling up climate finance in line with Article 9 of the Paris Agreement.

Consultations held during the June 2025 intersessionals in Bonn, with participation from Parties, financial institutions, and non-Party stakeholders, revealed sharp divergences in priorities, most notably between developed and developing countries. While developed countries emphasized private sector mobilization, enabling environments, and innovative finance, developing countries and stakeholders called attention to the quality of finance, the burden of debt, and the failure to fulfill past commitments, particularly the long-overdue $100 billion goal and the $300 billion needed for adaptation.

At the heart of this debate lies a structural reality: over half of current climate finance flows are debt-based, and much of what is labeled “support” continues to increase the indebtedness of already vulnerable nations. Furthermore, as pointed out by a Party, only 15% of climate finance reaches developing countries, because those funds tend to concentrate in so-called “low risk” markets. Many Parties and stakeholders, especially those from Least Developed Countries, SIDS, and Africa, highlighted that climate finance cannot be climate justice if it exacerbates inequality.

From these consultations, a clear divide emerged. Developing countries and stakeholders argued forcefully that the Roadmap must prioritize grants, highly concessional finance, and direct access mechanisms, particularly for Indigenous Peoples. They emphasized the need for a rights-based, country-driven approach, aligned with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Action Plans (NAPs), and rooted in equity and historical responsibility. In contrast, developed countries framed the roadmap as an implementation strategy that should not duplicate past negotiations, focusing instead on unlocking private capital, improving risk-sharing instruments, and creating bankable project pipelines.

The discussion around access was equally revealing. Stakeholders stressed that procedural barriers, high transaction costs, and opaque approval processes are systemic obstacles to finance access in developing countries. Many submissions underscored that the real issue is not a lack of capacity, but a lack of political will, particularly from donor countries, to restructure a financial architecture built around colonial legacies, market logic, and fiscal austerity.

Addressing the ongoing structural exclusion of Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous Peoples have consistently warned that scaling up climate finance without transforming the structures that exclude and harm them will deepen the very inequalities the Baku to Belém Roadmap is meant to address. During the stakeholder consultations in Bonn, the Indigenous Peoples’ Constituency welcomed references by some Party groupings to the need for direct access mechanisms for Indigenous Peoples. Yet, these mentions remain insufficient unless translated into binding commitments backed by political will, financial resources, and governance reform.

In their intervention, Indigenous Peoples emphasized that climate finance must be direct, flexible, intergenerational, gender-responsive, and channeled through Indigenous Peoples’ own institutions and financial mechanisms. This includes dedicated arrangements by the Global Environment Facility, the Green Climate Fund, the Adaptation Fund, and the Loss and Damage Fund. These institutions must go beyond token inclusion, ensuring effective representation of Indigenous Peoples at the board level, transparent tracking of funds, and enforcement of strong social, cultural, and environmental safeguards to prevent harm to Indigenous territories and ecosystems.

Crucially, climate finance must not fund projects that violate Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including fossil fuel expansion, transition mineral extraction, or industrial agriculture in biodiversity-rich Indigenous Peoples lands. As pointed out in their intervention, Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a non-negotiable requirement for any public or private sector investment. The private sector must be held accountable for harmful practices and excluded from climate finance mechanisms if they fail to meet this standard.

The intervention also called for a minimum of 25% of the Forest Tenure Funders Group’s Pledge 2.0 to be allocated directly to Indigenous Peoples, recognizing Indigenous Peoples proven role in protecting forests, biodiversity, and carbon stocks.

In essence, Indigenous Peoples must not be treated as passive recipients or stakeholders, but as rights-holders and Self-determined agents of climate solutions, with finance designed to strengthen, not erode, their governance, knowledge systems, and territorial integrity.

As these consultations will continue in Bonn, we will keep you informed about the most important developments on this front. 

Baku to Belem Roadmap Consultation in Bonn, Germany, with Parties